1951-04-20

Mr.  W. Chester S. McLure@Queens: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. At page 2173 of Hansard for April 19 the hon. member for Portage-Neepawa (Mr. Weir) moved that certain members comprise the special committee on the Dominion Elections Act, and then the names are recorded. The motion was agreed to. Before the motion was agreed to I asked whether my province of Prince Edward Island was represented on the committee. This question was not answered.
I find the following numbers of members representing the different provinces: Four from British Columbia; three from Alberta; four from Saskatchewan; two from Manitoba; seven from Ontario; six from Quebec; one from New Brunswick; two from Nova Scotia; none from Prince Edward Island, and one from Newfoundland. Therefore I object to the special committee on the ground that it does not represent all the provinces of Canada. My question of privilege is: Why should any one province without representation be dictated to by the other provinces?



INCOME TAX ACT


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre) moved: for leave to introduce Bill No. 199, to amend the Income Tax Act.


Mr. Speaker:: Has the hon. member leave to introduce the said bill?


Mr. Abbott:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: Carried.


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Since there seems to be such unanimous consent, perhaps we could give this bill all three readings today. The purpose of the amendment proposed by the bill-


Some hon. Members:: Dispense.


Stanley Howard Knowles: -is to remove in part the restrictions as to secrecy imposed by section
121 of the Income Tax Act, which as it stands at present can have the effect of preventing a minister of the crown from giving the Senate or the House of Commons such information as it might be perfectly legitimate to ask for and obtain.
No change is made in the matter of information obtained from personal income tax returns. Such information must still be kept secret. On the other hand, this amendment would make it possible to make public, at the request of a member of parliament, any information respecting corporations obtained by the income tax division of the Department of National Revenue. Surely the salutary effect of such an amendment must be obvious.


Mr. Speaker:: Has the hon. member leave to introduce the said bill?


Some hon. Members:: No.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: Agreed. When shall the bill be read the first time? Now?


Douglas Charles Abbott: Now.


Mr. Speaker:: Next sitting of the house?


Stanley Howard Knowles: The first time? No; now.


Mr. Chevrier:: Six months hence.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



DAIRY PRODUCTS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. A. Charlton (Brant-Wentworth):: I
should like to know whether the Minister of Agriculture is yet prepared to make a statement as to the position of the government with respect to a floor price on butter, which will give some assurance to the cream producers of Canada.


Right Hon. J. G. Gardiner (Minister of Agriculture):: I do not think I shall be in a position to make a statement until about Friday of next week.



INQUIRY AS TO DETERMINATION OF PRICE OF CHEESE TO PRODUCERS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. J. Tuslin (Prince Edward-Lennox):: Has a delegation from the Ontario cheese producers interviewed the minister recently,

Inquiries of the Ministry and if so has any price per pound to the producer been arrived at for this year?


James Garfield Gardiner: A delegation from the dairy
producers of Canada interviewed me recently, and I think a separate delegation from the cheese producers, then interviewed officials in the department. As I have just stated, by Friday of next week we hope to be able to make an announcement with regard to the matter.



POSTAL SERVICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gordon Graydon (Peel):: I should like to ask the Postmaster General if he can give the house an assurance that the government has no thought or intention of raising the ordinary letter postage from four to five cents, as is suggested in a news item in the Montreal Gazette of today.


Hon. Edouard Rinfret (Postmaster General):: I saw the article to which the hon. member refers. This is another of those statements that have absolutely no foundation. It is off the record and also off the beam.


Gordon Graydon: Sometimes where there is
smoke there is fire.


Édouard-Gabriel Rinfret: Not in this case.



REVISION OF POST OFFICE ACT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. George A. Drew (Leader of the Opposition):: In view of the fact that the
Postmaster General was away when I asked an earlier question which was answered by the parliamentary assistant, and in view of a further letter I have directed to the hon. gentleman, will the Postmaster General indicate whether the government intends to introduce any amendments to the Post Office Act or to the regulations, which will end the discrimination in regard to postage which now exists in Ottawa and, I understand, in some other cities as well?


Édouard-Gabriel Rinfret: A revision of the Post Office Act will be introduced this year. When it is brought down it will speak for itself.


Gordon Graydon: If I may ask a supplementary question, will the new Post Office Act be sent to a special committee so that we shall finally have an opportunity of going into the administration of the Post Office Department?


Édouard-Gabriel Rinfret: No decision has been reached on that point as yet.	/



INCOME TAX


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. R. Pearkes (Nanaimo):: Now that the Canadian forces have left for Korea, could the Minister of Finance say whether the personnel will be exempt from the liability of income tax on their service pay?


Douglas Charles Abbott: No, Mr. Speaker, it is not contemplated that there will be any exemption from income tax. As I stated in the course of my budget speech, we are introducing some special rules with respect to the tax on those in the armed forces, but I think the house is aware of my own personal view that no group should be exempt from the payment of income tax.



FLOOD CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
George Alexander Drew: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Public Works, of which I have not had the opportunity to give formal notice; for that reason I am bringing the question forward more by way of notice than otherwise. In view of the flood conditions in the Ottawa area, has the minister explored the possibility that the dams above the Quinze rapids near lake Timiskaming and at South Timiskaming, as well as dams lower down the river, might hold back a greater head of water, since flood conditions there are not as serious as they are in the Gatineau and other rivers tributary to the Ottawa in this area?


Hon. Alphonse Fournier (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, I have not gone into this matter with my officials, except that I did inquire of the deputy minister if there was any way of storing more water in these reservoirs north of lake Timiskaming. I understand the flow is actually over these dams, but I will have a report prepared in answer to that question and bring it down, perhaps on Monday.


George Alexander Drew: Without seeking anything further from the minister at the moment, might I point out that the information I received, which was the basis of my question-and which did not come to me early enough to be presented to the minister previously-was that at these dams and at some of the lower

dams, water was being by-passed which might be held back; and it is to that question I am asking the minister to direct his attention.


Alphonse Fournier: I will have a report ready by Monday. Tomorrow being Saturday, I could not bring it down then.



ARREST OF MISSIONARY SISTERS BY CHINESE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Jean Lesage (Parliamentary Assistant to the Secretary of Stale for External Affairs):: On Wednesday last the hon. member for Peel (Mr. Graydon) asked the Secretary of State for External Affairs if he could give some indication of the number of Christian missionaries still in Red Chinese territory. I may say on behalf of the minister that the department has no information as to the total number of Christian missionaries in China. However, there are now known to be 370 Canadians in continental China, of whom 332 are missionaries and their dependents.


Mr. Fulton:: May I ask the parliamentary assistant if he or his department is in possession of any further information on the reported arrest earlier this week of further Canadian missionary sisters?


Jean Lesage: I shall inquire and give an answer early next week.



HEALTH AND WELFARE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Jean Francois Pouliot (Temiscouata):: On April 18 the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of National Health and Welfare answered a question concerning pensions and family allowances paid in the city of Winnipeg, and said he could not give any information in that respect about each of the constituencies in that city. I should like to know if I could get that information about old age pensions, pensions for the blind and family allowances for the province of Manitoba as a whole.


Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: I shall be glad to look into the matter and see to what extent I can accommodate my hon. friend.



ORDER FOR RETURN


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Jean-François Pouliot: On Monday, March 19, more than a month
The Budget-Mr. Boucher ago, a question of mine with respect to reciprocal gifts as between Canada and other countries was passed as an order for return. The last paragraph read:
What was the amount or value in Canadian dollars of each gift mentioned in the two preceding questions?
In order to simplify the work of those engaged in calculating these amounts I would ask permission to withdraw the third paragraph of that question. In order to make easier the task of those working on the answer to this question I will give an illustration of what I want to know. For instance, Canada spent $450 million on the air training plan. In return we received as a gift the wrought iron gates at the Trenton camp. It is all those facts I want to know on both sides of the picture.



THE BUDGET


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Thursday, April 19, consideration of the motion of Hon. Douglas Abbott (Minister of Finance) that Mr. Speaker do now leave the chair for the house to go into committee of ways and means, and the amendment thereto of Mr. Macdonnell (Greenwood), and the amendment to the amendment of Mr. Coldwell.
Mr. W. A. Boucher (Rosthern):: Mr. Speaker, in rising to speak in this debate, I do so primarily as the elected representative of the Rosthern constituency, but I believe I am correct in saying that we are all elected to this democratic parliament to look after the interests of the people in all parts of Canada.
It is a privilege and a pleasure to open my address by extending warm congratulations to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) upon his great effort this year. I believe there is no more arduous position in the government of our great country than the one which he holds. I feel sure that the people of Canada, irrespective of party, appreciate the services that he has given to our country. It is quite generally known that he has served us in this difficult task at great financial sacrifice. To unthinking people who cynically criticize politicians I would throw out this challenge. Let anyone who belittles the services of those who guide our political destinies show where they have made comparable sacrifices in seeking to serve other than their personal interests. It is my hope, and I believe it is the hope of a large number of Canadians, that the Minister of Finance,

The Budget-Mr. Boucher during the critical period through which we are passing, will remain in the office he now holds.
It is a pleasure to congratulate the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Prudham) on his elevation to the cabinet as Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys. The minister, at a comparatively early age, has made a success of his private business, and I am confident he will extend his record of success as he continues to serve his country in public life. We of his neighbouring province of Saskatchewan will watch his career with a great deal of interest and enthusiasm.
I know that no minister and no government is happy when it becomes necessary to increase the taxes which they must collect to administer the affairs of the country. I feel sure, however, that our people will understand and appreciate the need for a greater contribution at this time. A large proportion of the people of Saskatchewan have come from the countries of central Europe. They came to Canada to escape wars and rumours of wars. They know, even better than we know, that the security of our nation, the security of our homes, is a primary need if we are to build a community of prosperous and happy people. For this reason I am sure that each person in Canada will consider it a privilege to bear his share of the cost of protecting our homes from invasion by the communists.
I take second place to no one in advocating the greatest possible measures of social security. But all our security measures would be worthless if we neglected our defences and let ourselves be overcome by the aggressive communist forces in the world. We would be enslaved without recourse. It is for this reason, then, that I am particularly proud to support a government that has given so much of its energy and ability, especially in the last year, to the preservation of peace. One of the greatest guarantees that we can have for peace is to remain united and strong with our western neighbours. The record of the government of Canada in its quest for peace is a notable one, which needs and deserves the support of all peace-loving people. We were proud to see our own minister of external affairs appointed to the cease-fire committee of the United Nations. His efforts were tireless, and I feel sure that they will yet have an important effect, even if it is not obvious at this time.
The efforts of the Secretary of State for External Affairs and of the government as a whole to preserve peace have been a sharp blow to the aggressive forces of the world which use the language of peace in order to


weaken the free nations and leave them prey to the aggressive intentions of Russian imperialism. The quest for peace and the necessary action to defend our homes against communist aggression must come first in all our plans and expenditures, because these things are basic in our search for prosperity and happiness.
An important part of these basic aims includes certain developments at home to increase our production. I refer particularly to the South Saskatchewan dam and irrigation project. This project will give stability to a large section of our productive prairie land, in addition to the production from the lands which are actually irrigated. The early completion of this project will enable us to make a greater contribution to our national and humanitarian desires.
During this session we have had the interesting spectacle of an opposition which has spoken, and continues to speak, with two voices on the question of the special powers to be given our government to be used as and when needed to protect our homes. On the one hand the opposition has used extreme statements in accusing the government of trying to take undemocratic powers, while on the other hand it has criticized the government severely because the government does not use special powers more drastically. In my constituency, and in the province of Saskatchewan generally, I have found that the majority of the people trust this government to use special powers with the greatest discretion and in the interests of all our people.
The farmers of my constituency-and practically all our people, because we all live directly or indirectly from our farms-are enthusiastic supporters of the wheat board. I regret to say that the socialist government of Saskatchewan has done our farmers a great disservice by sniping continuously at the work of the board in an effort to make political capital for itself. It has thus given aid and comfort to those who are trying to break this method of marketing and to bring back the open market of the Winnipeg grain exchange. I believe our farmers will remain steadfast in support of the wheat board. They have a great fear of what could happen to them, with so much frozen and low-grade grain, if they were thrown on the mercy of the Winnipeg grain exchange or any other open market. They know that the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) and the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) have not let them down, and I am sure that they will refuse to be stampeded into any position that will threaten the continuance of

the wheat board and the pooling system of handling and selling their grain.


Mr. Wright:: On a matter of privilege, Mr. Speaker, may I say that if the hon. member is going to read his speech he had better stay away from controversial matters and not accuse people falsely.


William Albert Boucher: Take your medicine once in a while. I have been listening to you for a long time.


Mr. Blackmore:: For goodness' sake tell us the truth.


An hon. Member:: You can't take it.


John Horne Blackmore: Tell the truth occasionally.


William Albert Boucher: If the hon. gentleman will contain himself, I will deal with some of his statements later.


Percy Ellis Wright: If you don't lose the page.


William Albert Boucher: With respect to the five-year contract with the government of the United Kingdom, I wish to say that-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I have already ruled that the five-year wheat contract cannot be discussed during this debate.


William Albert Boucher: I am not discussing the wheat contract with the British government, Mr. Speaker. Let me say just this. I am sorry that they did not see fit to give greater regard to the "have regard to" clause.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I have ruled that that matter is not debatable at this time, and that reference should not be made to it during this debate.


William Albert Boucher: I bow to your decision, Mr. Speaker. I will just say that I had hopes that our farmers would have received about twelve cents per bushel as a final payment on the five-year pool.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. If the hon. member persists in discussing this matter, I shall be forced to ask him to discontinue his speech.


Edmund Davie Fulton: What about having it struck out of Hansard?


William Albert Boucher: The farmers of Canada need the support of every hon. member of this house in their quest for a fair proportion of the national income. I am sure that the farmers of Saskatchewan could only wish that the many stories that you hear about their great prosperity were true. If the interests of the people of Canada should ever require that the type of price controls imposed in the last war be reinstated, careful consideration should be given to the position of the farm
The Budget-Mr. Boucher and agricultural economy. The farmers of Canada have never asked, and will not ask now, for more than a fair share of our economy, but they do ask for that.


Mr. Wylie:: They are not getting it now.


William Albert Boucher: They are getting a lot more than they ever did before, Mr. Speaker. I am proud to say that. Generally speaking, the farmers of Canada never before got along as well as they have been getting along during the last few years under this government.
I am pleased to see that the hon. member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Thatcher) is in the house. Some time ago he said that every Liberal member had made promises all over our province during the last election with respect to the final payment on the five-year pool.


An hon. Member:: Order.


William Albert Boucher: I am not discussing the wheat agreement. Do you want to hear an answer to what he said?


Stanley Howard Knowles: The Speaker has ruled it out of order.


William Albert Boucher: I am not discussing the five-year pool at all.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I hope the hon. member is not going to refer to the five-year wheat pool.


William Albert Boucher: No, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Brooks:: He does not know what he is talking about.


Mr. Johnston:: Who wrote that speech, anyway? He has it all mixed up.


William Albert Boucher: It is not written; it is just notes.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The hon. member is reading every word of it, and he knows it.


William Albert Boucher: The remarks made by the hon. member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Thatcher) will be found at page 1095 of Hansard of March 9, 1951. That statement, Mr. Speaker, is absolutely untrue. I did not at any time make any promises.
I should now like to quote from the speech of the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Argue).


Percy Ellis Wright: You cannot quote from a former debate.


William Albert Boucher: It is reported at page 1326 of Hansard of March 16, 1951. He said-


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member must not refer to a debate in the present session. That debate was concluded and cannot be reopened at this time. I must

The Budget-Mr. Boucher be firm. Hon. members must observe the rules of the house, and I hope they will co-operate with me in endeavouring to enforce them.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The hon. member should not read his speech at all, Mr. Speaker.


William Albert Boucher: I am not reading my speech.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


William Albert Boucher: May I quote what the hon. member said, Mr. Speaker?


Charles Edward Johnston: Not from that speech.


Mr. Speaker:: Not at this time.


Charles Edward Johnston: The hon. member is about six weeks too late.


An hon. Member:: Turn the page.


William Albert Boucher: I will not make any quotation, then, Mr. Speaker. Some time ago the hon. member asked: What kind of animal is the Liberal party?


Mr. Ross (Souris):: That goes for every session.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Put it on the order paper.


William Albert Boucher: Through you, Mr. Speaker, I want to tell the hon. member that we are not the kind of animal that will steal a constituency from a colleague.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


James Arthur Ross: That isn't the way we heard it.


An hon. Member:: You steal from somebody else.


William Albert Boucher: The hon. member for Rose-town-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) made some severe attacks, both in the house and over the air, on the Minister of Agriculture. These attacks were not well received and were not appreciated by the farmers of western Canada. I am sure that all the farmers of Canada know that the Minister of Agriculture is the best minister for that department that this country ever had. I am sure they all appreciate the great service that he has given to agriculture and to Canada as a whole.
I now wish to say a word about the report of the royal commission on transportation. I want to congratulate the royal commission on transportation on the thoroughness with which they have made the investigation assigned to them by this government. The implementation of this report will go a long way toward overcoming many of the inequities that have existed in the economy of the widely separated areas of Canada, and I would strongly recommend that this report be implemented as soon as possible. It will


be a further step toward that greater Canadian unity which has been developing so rapidly over the past few years.
I am pleased and proud, Mr. Speaker, that my predecessor, Mr. Walter Tucker, gets credit for the great contribution he made to this matter. Mr. Tucker gets the credit in a memorandum attached to the main report of the commission by one of its three members, Dr. H. A. Innis, of the university of Toronto.
I think that we in Canada are fortunate to have such great leadership as has been given to us by this government. Our government has realized that the basis of our defence, our progress and our happiness must be the greatest possible unity of our people from the eastern shores of Newfoundland to the far-flung western islands on our Pacific coast. These are challenging times in which we live. I am satisfied-as I feel sure are the great majority of the people of Canada -that the present government will be equal to the needs of the occasion. They will measure up to our highest expectations in seeking to establish peace all over the world, on the basis of which we can make still further progress to prosperity and happiness. For these reasons I am glad to support this budget on behalf of the electors of Rosthern constituency.


Mr. J. G. Diefenbaker (Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to repeat many of the criticisms that have already been made, because the views of the opposition in regard to the budget were set forth by the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Macdonnell) when he moved an amendment on behalf of His Majesty's Loyal Opposition. To summarize what he said on that occasion: The budget is inflationary. Large sums of money could be saved in an economy drive by the government, which would render unnecessary the application of the general sales tax. Over the past few years there has been overtaxation year by year. Finally, measures should be taken to meet the high cost of living arising from profiteering.
This has been a most unreal discussion. All the statements made by the hon. member for Greenwood, and offered as his considered criticism, have been unanswered by any member of the government. Never before in my experience in the house has the government of the day been unable to answer criticisms and has therefore remained silent, as this government has in recent days. It is all very well for the hon. member for Rosthern (Mr. Boucher) to say that everyone is satisfied-


William Albert Boucher: The great majority is.


John George Diefenbaker: He referred to one
gentleman for whom I too have a high regard,

namely, Mr. Tucker, but he did not express the same views in the legislature that my hon. friend did a while ago; for, sir, he voted for a proposal that a larger sum of money be paid by the Dominion of Canada to help western agriculture, and in particular-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. If the hon. member for Lake Centre is referring to the five-year wheat agreement, I would ask him not to do so.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I was
referring to a motion in the legislature' of Saskatchewan.


Mr. Weir:: Having to do with what?


John George Diefenbaker: I would not say anything, Your Honour, to transgress any rule, but it was difficult to resist a reference to something which had actually been stated by my hon. friend, and which, if unanswered, might leave a wrong impression.


Mr. Speaker:: May I say I hope that this matter will not be discussed again during this debate? The question was raised this afternoon and has been answered, and I hope we shall not hear it again.


John George Diefenbaker: Before dealing in general with some matters that I should like to discuss-because the budget gives to members an opportunity of bringing to the attention of the government matters of interest to their constituents and to the people of the country as a whole-I should like to refer once more to the serious situation on the prairies resulting from a lack of the necessary freight cars to move the wheat crop, amounting to tens of millions of bushels. That problem is not answered by statistics given by the Minister of Transport (Mr. Chevrier). It is one that affects every farmer in western Canada. Having regard to the conditions which prevailed last fall, many millions of bushels of wheat are in danger of being lost entirely as a result of failure to act on the question of the supply of freight cars.
There will be serious loss to farmers everywhere unless something is done about it.
It is all very well to say that there are not as many freight cars in the United States now as there were three, four or five weeks ago, but the adverse balance of freight cars in the United States today is still a great deal more than one and a half times what it normally has been in past years. Nothing has been done about it except consultation. I mentioned the other day, and I repeat, that in 1919 a similar condition existed, and the then government of Canada appealed to the government of the United States to do something. Even today, with the month of April almost gone, I urge the government to make
20. 1951
The Budget-Mr. Diefenbaker representations to the government of the United States to the end that something be done in this regard; otherwise something approaching disaster faces western farmers.
I hold in my hand a resolution dated April 16, which comes from a town in Saskatchewan with a population of about 400. It states that the elevators are filled; 410,000 bushels of grain are in the elevators, but there are an estimated 200,000 bushels among the farmers that cannot be disposed of, part of which is wet wheat or damp wheat. I am not one of those who over the years has believed in bringing up only such matters as are of particular interest to my own area; this is a condition which prevails, and I make an appeal that something be done before it is too late.
In view of the situation which now exists, most farmers will have to face the necessity of providing their own storage. I therefore suggest that consideration be given, as has been done in the United States, to adequate balance of payments for farm storage so that the farmers themselves will be in a position to arrange for a type of storage which will meet present needs.
The quota system has been unfair and inequitable, and the result is that in certain areas only a portion, and not a large portion, of the crop of last year has been sold. I ask the government to act immediately, and not merely by a parade of statistics. The situation is serious when one considers that 170 million bushels of wheat are unsold in the western provinces.
I now wish to say a few words about the budget. Last fall I had the honour, along with other hon. members, of attending the meetings of the commonwealth parliamentary association in New Zealand and Australia, and in passing I would pay my tribute to the bountiful hospitality and warm welcome extended to us by the governments of these two commonwealth countries. It was pointed out by one after another of the representatives there that one of the greatest allies that Stalin has in the world today is inflation. The Minister of Finance said in his address the other night that inflation was more serious in Australia than it is in Canada. That was not my view while I was there. In Canada there is almost hysterical inflation, mounting from day to day to an extent never before equalled, and with no effective action being taken by the government. The leader of the opposition referred to the condition as runaway inflation; I think it is actually galloping inflation. Nothing in particular is being done to meet the problem of the ever-declining savings measured in purchasing power of our people, those who invested their money in

The Budget-Mr. Diefenhaker insurance, those who are in receipt of pensions. Inflation has cut away almost half of the purchasing power of their savings or allowances. Great as are hidden taxes, the most objectionable of all is inflation. It undermines and destroys. Burglary is an offence; but the silent, effective theft of inflation undermines the fabric of our country-and no effective action is taken.
The situation is so serious as to merit something more than adulation of the government as exemplified by some hon. members. That provides no remedy. None of us wants a condition such as this to continue, and when there are criticisms it is because we believe they are called for in view of the gravity of the situation as we see it.
The Minister of Finance contended that the extra levy of sales tax really did not amount to anything for persons in the lower income brackets for it covers only about twenty-five per cent of the commodities purchased by those whose incomes are less than $3,000. But that is not the whole story. There is no tax on bread; yet the sales tax actually increases the price of bread to the consumer. Sales tax is imposed on the motor vehicles used for delivery, on the wrappings of the bread, on the machinery and equipment that goes into the production of bread, and so forth.
Hidden taxation is greater than ever before in our history, and it is being increased at a time when inflation is at its height. There can be no answer to the argument advanced by the hon. member for Greenwood that the increasing of the sales tax would increase prices. It has done so already. While we talk of its effects, prices rise on commodities subject to the additional sales tax.
Only in the last few days the prices of cigarettes and gasoline have been increased, and there is also the expected increase in the price of oil used for agricultural purposes. Prices of furniture and shoes are rising at a time when the government should act to meet the situation relative to inflation.
One of the means suggested by the hon. member for Greenwood was that there should be a reduction in government expenditures. The answer of the minister is: There was; we have attacked the problem. Well, of $1,992 million of non-defence expenditures the reduction has been $35 million, or just one and four-fifths cents on the dollar.
Why could not the government set up a commission similar to that advocated last year by the leader of the opposition, similar to the Hoover commission in the United States, which recommended savings of hundreds of millions of dollars in controllable
expenditures? Why could this not be done, at a time when it is so necessary in the preparation of our defences?
If we do not win the fight against inflation, defence costs will mount to intolerable and bankrupting heights. We cannot beat Stalin with a 56-cent dollar and maintain incentive in our country. The other day the Minister of Finance, in clarion tones, called for action to meet inflation. But a few minutes later his voice was muffled by its own inconsistency when living costs were increased to every family in the country by the increase of the general sales tax to the extent of twenty-five per cent.
If the government had practised economy the extra sales tax would not have been necessary. I agree with the subamendment of the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) wherein he suggests that the incomes of single persons earning up to $1,500 and married persons earning up to $3,000 should be exempt from the defence surtax. I think there is justification for that position.
Exemption from personal income tax is based upon the considered opinion of government authorities as to what it costs the individual or the ordinary family to live. But when provision was made for the present exemption, on March 22, 1949, the cost of living index stood at 159-5, whereas today it is 179-5, representing an increase of about twenty-one per cent. In view of the statistics set forth in the Labour Gazette of March 1951, unless the standard of living of persons in low income tax brackets is to be materially reduced there must be an increase in the amount of exemptions.
Having said that, I am not going to indulge in any further criticism of the budget. The Minister of Finance said the other night in a radio speech that he thought the people were satisfied with it. That has not been my experience. I know of no family in this country in the lower income brackets that can find justification for the imposition of an additional sales tax at a time when they find it almost impossible to carry on by reason of the increased cost of living.
We need money to finance the country; that was admitted by the hon. member for Greenwood, Yes, we must meet the danger we face throughout the world, and we can meet it with an economy-minded government that will scrupulously reduce all unnecessary expenditures. What have they done? The Minister of Finance in his radio speech said in effect: Did we not reduce the number of civil servants by five per cent? When he says that, I think of the mail carriers in

various parts of the country, overworked as they were before the reduction; I think of the paltry savings effected by their removal from office and I have a suspicion that the mail carrier was chosen so that in every community the people would see at first hand that something was being done by the government to economize. In the face of reductions that could be made, and in the light of what the Hoover commission in the United States showed could be done and was done in that country, the interference with the employment of these post office employees, hardworking as they are, is not justified on the grounds of economy or otherwise.
Yesterday over the air we listened to General MacArthur in one of the most outstanding speeches made anywhere in the world since last June when, for the first time the conscience of mankind moved against international wrongdoing.
Unfortunately within the last few weeks I have been obliged to be absent from the house for some time. But I have read Hansard more carefully, Mr Speaker, than I do even when I am here. One thing that strikes me particularly is that members of this house know so little about what the government proposes to do with reference to international affairs that affect the people of Canada. General MacArthur said much yesterday about the need of expanding the area of warfare in Korea to the Yalu river, and about the bombing of portions of China. I am not going to enter into any controversy on these matters; they are for military men. But in such a course there are dangers that are not attributable to appeasement.
At the commonwealth conference in New Zealand, and the later one in Australia, there were representatives of every colour and race from every part of the commonwealth, and there were among them some who spoke of the need of effectively using the atomic bomb against the North Koreans. I bring to you today, Mr. Speaker, the answer of the coloured races from every part of the world, from Asia, from Africa, from other areas in the south Pacific. Every one of the coloured races represented there argued against that. They said in effect: Do not discriminate against us again. Do not use the atomic bomb a third time against a coloured race, for in doing so you will unite the coloured races everywhere in the world against the white democratic peoples. That was their message, and it is a message that I believe deserves consideration.
Yesterday General MacArthur stated his position on Formosa, which he regards as
The Budget-Mr. Diefenbaker a bastion in the western Pacific. The attitude taken by the British government seems to be that, as Mr. Roosevelt and Prime Minister Churchill had made certain agreements at Cairo, those agreements should be carried out and Formosa turned over to China. I ask you, Mr. Speaker: Who in this house knows what the attitude of Canada is going to be on this matter so important to the future peace of the world? I feel that we have a right to ask that the fullest possible discussion take place on these matters in the House of Commons and not in the service clubs, that we in parliament have a right to know what our government will do on our behalf in a matter that affects the future of every Canadian and our very way of life.
What will be its attitude to Formosa with relation to the United Nations? What stand has the Canadian government taken with relation to the United Nations and expansion of the area of active warfare north of the boundaries of North Korea? These are matters the import of which concerns the salvation and future not only of people in other parts of the world but ourselves. I will give you the picture as I saw it in the commonwealth parliamentary association. There were representatives from the various provinces of the dominion. From this house there were the hon. member for Leeds (Mr. Fulford), the hon. member for Vaudreuil-Soulanges (Mr. Beaudoin), the hon. member for Prince (Mr. MacNaught), the hon. member for Selkirk (Mr. Bryce), and we were accompanied by the Clerk of the House of Commons, Mr. Leon Raymond, K.C., O.B.E. Senator Roebuck represented the other place and was chosen as the chairman of the council.
We went over there to an unofficial parliament of representatives of every part of the commonwealth. I have heard Canadians say sometimes that there is no future for the British commonwealth. Such views were answered when one after the other these men representing every religion, race and colour spoke of what the British commonwealth meant and what it would mean to the future of the world and to freedom. I think of one representative from India who spent years fighting for his national freedom, and who measured his contribution in the biographical sketch in the back of the guide by the number of years that he had been in prison. He said to me one day: Do not sell the commonwealth short. Realize that it comprises 22 per cent of the world's population and does 33 per cent of the world's trade compared with 8 per cent on the part of the Soviet republic and all the

The Budget-Mr. Diefenbaker puppets aligned with it. Freedom depends on the survival of Britain and the commonwealth.
The strength and diversity of the commonwealth are things that we do not often speak about because for some reason it is not popular to do so. These men of every race and colour asked that we ensure within the commonwealth freedom from discrimination and thereby unite every part of the commonwealth against communism. None of them seemed to consider war inevitable; but the common feeling was that as communism advances in southeast Asia and gradually stretches its hand in the direction of Australia and New Zealand the commonwealth should stand together.
They pointed out that Singapore is weak compared to the days before the last war, that all through the Malayan states communism has infiltrated, that in Ceylon a very considerable percentage of the representation of their parliament is composed of communists. I do not presume to interfere with the internal affairs of other countries within the commonwealth but when one reads of the situation in South Africa it is very disturbing in a world where communism is doing its best to enlist the coloured races in its ranks on the promise of material advantage in return, coupled with equality without regard to race or colour.
I am convinced that wherever there is antiracialism or hunger exists there are potential breeding grounds of communism. It is for that reason that they asked, first, that each of the countries within the British commonwealth and empire eschew anything that discriminates against any race or colour. They contended too that in addition to military assistance we should do our part, not in a spirit of charity but in a spirit of Christian benevolence, to assist underprivileged peoples and thereby raise their living standards.
The other day I listened to the admirable address of the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Maybank), in which he left with the members of this house a message that could have come only from the heart. He asked for the support of the Colombo plan as a means to meet the advance of communism in Asia. Those who live in the Pacific area believe that the great danger spots of communist aggression are in Asia. The attitude taken in the United Kingdom is that the danger spot is in western Germany. I am speaking only of the Asiatic situation, for that was one about which we learned particularly at the time of that conference.

The yearnings of peoples suffering from hunger cannot be met by the promise of parliamentary government and democracy alone. H-bombs are not all we need fear in Asia. The H-weapon of communism is hunger. I am disappointed that Canada, having agreed to advance $25 million under the Colombo pact-a mere drop in the bucket when compared with the cost of our defence program -did not agree to send to India, at a time when 40 million people are facing starvation, the best wheat available in our country, rather than wheat that could not be milled. We should make a contribution to the welfare of the people of India now, when they need it. At the same time, if the matter is looked at from the national interest we would have been building up future markets; we would have been building up goodwill, and would have been meeting the onrush of communism which, as never before in history, challenges the future of democracy in Asia.
The representatives of various coloured races spoke English with faultless diction and with a power and eloquence that we whose native tongue is English seldom equal. These races are moved by resurgence of nationalistic pride greater than at any time in history. They want freedom to preserve their fundamental rights, by way of democratic government. They want something that will meet their material demands. Communism promises an acre of land. We cannot do that but we can help to ease the gnawing pangs of ever-recurrent hunger. When Liaquat Ali Khan spoke in this house, I wondered what he meant when he said:
There can be no peace without removing the economic disequilibrium which keeps more than half the world in poverty and the ferment of discontent. Neither peace nor progress is possible without international co-operation.
I know now, and that is why I make this appeal. I ask the government of Canada to do something tangible in connection with the Colombo plan it has accepted before millions starve. How many of us realize that the population of the world is increasing at the rate of 60,000 a day? How many of us appreciate that if India were able to reduce her death toll by raising health standards and improving living standards, at the end of a hundred years its population would be twice the present population of the world? The increase in the world population is taking place mainly in Asia and Africa, and it is for that reason we must meet communism there. If it gains control there, world control will be an easier objective.
We have to break the stalemate of inflation which uncontrolled will emasculate our country and its efforts. At the same time

we have to accept our international responsibilities in connection with helping to raise the standards of underprivileged countries. As the leader of the opposition has said on more than one occasion, while plans to meet inflation give temporary relief, no final solution for the problem can be secured except by greater production. How are we going to get that? Some who attended the parliamentary conference spoke of Australia, of New Zealand and of Canada, great countries with tremendous resources still undeveloped. They contended that they should not be denied admission to these countries only because of their colour. They were perfectly willing to be denied admission on economic grounds and provided we had the necessary population and were developing our countries so that our greater production would help them and raise living standards elsewhere.
If we are to meet this problem of inflation- and I intend to deal with the question of immigration and will on another occasion, merely make this passing reference now-we will have to greatly increase our population within the next ten or fifteen years. Otherwise we will not be able to meet the demands that face us, nor will we be able to fulfil our responsibilities, having regard to the magnetic influence on communist peoples of a country with our vast resources. Last year 73,000 people came to Canada as immigrants, while 31,000 left Canada as emigrants. That shows that there is something wanting, something that has to be done. After all it does not mean very much to have an immigration policy under which two people are brought into our country while one Canadian leaves in the same period.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I say we must meet the problem of inflation. We must do something more than bring forward statistics and say things are not as bad as they seem. Even at this time the government of this country would be doing something worth while if it were to agree to the setting up of a commission similar to the Hoover commission which did so much in the United States. For some reason or other, however, the government takes an adamant attitude toward this suggestion. In the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States members do not practise their political partisanship to the extent that one might imagine. There, in committee, without regard to party, considerable amounts were written off even the defence estimates without in any way diminishing the effectiveness of the national contribution. I feel this problem must be met, and it cannot be met by adding to the cost of living through taxation under a general sales tax, at a time when people
The Budget-Mr. Byrne already face the highest cost of living in history. I wonder what hon. gentlemen opposite would say if they were over here and a Conservative government were in power, with the cost of living higher than ever before. Surely, so far as our people in the low income brackets are concerned, relief should be given against an additional sales tax of 25 per cent. With effective economies practised, not 1-8 cents on the dollar economies, there would be no necessity for extra taxation, as was stated by the hon. member for Greenwood. He made that statement several days ago. Since not one minister of the crown has risen to challenge it, all one can conclude is that it is correct.


Mr. J. A. Byrne (Kooienay East):: Mr. Speaker, I shall delay the house but a few minutes. Since this budget is designed to accommodate a huge war preparation, it can hardly be expected to please one and all. I am sure that it meets with the general approval of the Canadian public. The opposition members are fully aware of the necessity for raising such huge sums. While criticizing the government severely, they have offered little advice as to how such sums could be raised or should be raised. Last evening when the member for Lethbridge (Mr. Black-more) rose in his place, I thought that perhaps he did have the solution. From the number of questions which he asked the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott), I fear that the Social Credit party does not have the answer either.
I agree with some hon. members that perhaps there was room for an increase on the tax on liquor, which after all is a luxury and should be used only when the necessities of life have been provided. Last year the people in the province of Ontario spent in excess of $118 million in government liquor stores. I do not believe this sum includes the amount spent on cheaper beverages such as beer and wine. A tax increase in this area could possibly have had a twofold effect. It would have decreased the consumption, and made labour available for more essential industries.
The fact that the minister has decided to allow union dues to be deducted from the total earnings for income tax purposes gives me very great pleasure. I am sure that this removes from the statutes of Canada what has been said by many, and appears to me, to be class legislation.
It has been said that the tax on electrical appliances will weigh most heavily on newly married couples. I think we must not forget the fathers and mothers who have three and four children, who do not necessarily have all these facilities but certainly have all the

The Budget-Mr. Byrne budgetary difficulties of raising a large family.
I feel that none can escape this terrific burden of the defence preparation; it falls heavily on the nation as a whole.
I wish to develop what I consider to be one of the prime objectives of this battle against inflation. With ten per cent of our national production going in the direction of war expenditures, and without any appreciable increase in our total national production except in terms of dollar values, a reduction in our standard of living is almost inevitable. All the money in the world cannot buy the things that do not exist. If we were to distribute every earned dollar of profits, savings, and investments to the consuming public for the next year, we would not increase the goods available. The standard of living would continue to decline until we were able to find a means of increasing production. The exception, of course, would be the amount by which we were able to import from other countries by reason of the fantastic prices we would be prepared to offer. This may sound like poor reasoning, but I am simply trying to prove that unless we increase our national production by something in excess of ten per cent we cannot escape a reduction in our living standards. This alone will not stem the rising cost of living, but at least it will provide the materials for continued high living.
It has been said many times in this house that higher wages are the cause of inflation. I challenge this assertion, Mr. Speaker. The necessity for extremely high wage demands is but another symptom of the inflation or shortage of consumer goods. You show me an establishment where wages and conditions are poor, in relation to the whole, and I will show you an inefficient operation. High priced and a high quality labour encourages the development of better machines. Labour's continued desire for better conditions has always been, and will continue to be, a stimulus to industry to mechanize and modernize. The ability of the operators of industry to pay differs widely because of world and local market conditions. The unions must be left free to strike the best bargain possible for the employees concerned. I believe that many labour leaders, and the majority of the rank and file, seldom ask for or insist upon more than industry and the general public can afford to pay. In my opinion it is yet the only equitable way to distribute the wealth of the industries whose profits depend largely upon foreign markets.
The deferred depreciation plan provided in the budget will no doubt have the desired effect of deferring expenditures on gadgets, frills and a general dressing up of the

establishment. I am somewhat apprehensive of the long run effect it may have upon our standards. It will mean a further set-back in capital expenditures coming so quickly on the heels of a six-year delay consequent upon the last great war. This may have an adverse effect upon our living standards. Our rapidly increasing population, without an equal expansion of capital expenditures for increasing the productive capacity of consumer goods and farm machinery, will tend towards further shortages. This could increase the pressure on the inflationary spiral.
It has been said by leading economists, and many times in this house, that inflation is an enemy of force equal to any military power which we may face. That being so, any factors which may contribute to a lessening of production must not be overlooked, and conversely any factors which may tend to increase our productivity must be given consideration. While our valiant soldiers are fighting and dying on the battlefields, let us ask ourselves if we are doing everything in our power to win the battle against inflation on the economic field at home. It is not so much controls and a controlled economy that is needed most, but a measure of self-denial and the will to produce. How is this to be brought about? I would say first that we must make sure that the steel, which is presently in extremely short supply, is allotted in such a manner that it finds its way into the many labour saving devices and machines. We must adopt measures most likely to create amicable labour relations between employer and employee by an educational policy sponsored by our Department of Labour. I feel that this could go a long way towards the establishment of joint production committees such as were in existence during the last war, many of which- are still in operation today and doing excellent work. They could discuss production problems, review individual suggestions and make awards for useful applications for labour and material savings, as is being done in many of those committees in operations that continue that plan. They could encourage industry to adopt job simplification and method studies and could work toward the abandonment of old and obsolete rules which, in many ways, strangle progress.
I would suggest the exemption from income tax of all earnings acquired on an incentive and overtime basis and of all income earned in addition to regular yearly wages and salaries. At least if this were not possible, an alternative incentive would be to reduce the taxation on such income. That is to say anyone who is prepared to put additional

effort into productive capacity will not be put in a position of pyramiding his earnings for income tax purposes, something which has a repressive effect on individual initiative.
I would suggest calling a halt to the present practice of compulsory retirement of able-bodied employees at 60 and 65 and urge re-employment of those now retired who are willing and able to take positions in industry. Women who have no family ties should be encouraged to return to industry wherever possible. But we have those who are now on statutory fixed incomes and they must be looked after at the earliest possible moment if they are to continue to suffer under this present inflationary condition. I would urge that steps be taken immediately to carry out the recommendations of the old age security committee, that supplementary payments be made and that the means test be abolished at the earliest possible moment.
Leaving the general economic scene for a moment, I wish to congratulate the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Shaw) who in an exceedingly able manner showed the precarious position that the western coal industry is in today. This situation is indeed serious; and before huge sums of public money are expended on such projects as the St. Lawrence waterway, I would suggest that we should make a complete and thorough survey of the economic conditions of both the far east and the far west. This is not to say that I am opposed in principle to the St. Lawrence seaway; but before accepting the scheme in toto, I should first wish to be assured that this heavy capital debt, running perhaps for generations, would not outweigh the benefits of the transportation facilities it would provide the nation. It is, of course, indisputable that water transportation is vastly more economical when the Creator and nature provide the channel; but it is Quite probable that this big ditch may forever put a burden on the Canadian public.
Is it necessary at this time that the iron ore of Labrador be brought to central Canada for the production of steel for the western provinces? Would it not be advisable first to investigate the possibility of a steel industry in the west where much of this material is consumed? The coal produced in western Canada, particularly in the Femie district, is particularly suitable for coking and blast furnace purposes. East Kootenay, of which Femie is a part, has all the natural resources necessary for such a development; and the markets in the prairie provinces and on the Pacific coast are constantly expanding. Farm machinery production has always been
The Budget-Mr. Gagnon a heavy user of steel, while gas and oil pipe lines will be needed in ever-increasing quantities.
There are some deposits of hematite ore in the Kootenays, and also an extremely large iron sulphide deposit, millions of tons of which have been milled and are lying in storage near the Sullivan mill at Kimberley in Kootenay East. Many more millions of tons can be produced and 500 tons daily are going into storage at that point. Generally, this iron sulphide is not considered to be a useful iron ore; but recent developments in that area, in the plans for building a fertilizer plant at Kimberley, changed the picture considerably, The roasting of iron sulphide for the production of sulphuric acid leaves a residue of iron oxide low in sulphur that can be utilized for blast furnaces. This sulphuric acid, by the way, is used in the production of fertilizer for the western provinces and export markets. Limestone, a raw material which is necessary in the operation of a blast furnace, is also available in the nearby Kootenay area.
I wish to commend this extremely important project to the attention of the house and to the government, and to ask that they give its possibilities serious consideration.
(Translation) :


Mr. Paul E. Gagnon (Chicoutimi):: Mr. Speaker, the budget speech, delivered last Tuesday by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott), has been both a surprise and a disappointment. In fact, following the oft repeated declarations of friendship by members of the government for the labouring classes, nobody could expect that the proposed changes in the Income Tax Act would strike first and above all at the householder's budget. That is one reason for our surprise.
The unconcern, inaction and inconsistency of the authorities in the face of the present economic confusion are the causes of our disappointment.
Mr. Speaker, one of the first items of our defence program should be the fight against inflation. The government, however, is not giving that serious problem all the attention it deserves. No efficient steps have been taken to curb the excessive rise in the cost of living. What steps are suggested to prevent the situation from deteriorating even more? None, or very few. The authorities justify their inaction by repeating everywhere that other countries are faced with the same evil, that we are not the only ones who must grapple with this problem and that this thought should relieve our anxiety and put an end to our representations.

The Budget-Mr. Gagnon
The people, especially the workers, whose salaries have hardly increased since the war, are frantic. The necessities of life have reached a fantastic price, savings disappear, pensions, annuities and allowances, everything goes.
A worried public requests the government to take steps to stem this artificial wave of prosperity which absorbs savings and forces labour unions to ask for trade controls.
Unfortunately, price and wage controls alone cannot stop inflation. Such steps can bring temporary relief but, sooner or later, unless one strikes at the root causes of this capitalistic vice, powerful forces will break loose with such fury that no one will be able to curb them. A tied-down safety valve on the boiler won't hold the steam in check very long if you keep shovelling fuel into the fire box.
The government, whose duty it is to protect the public, should find means to remove the tremendous pressure of this increase.
Waiting to see what the effect will be of the United States government's orders in that respect, is to adopt the policy of the ostrich. A people who imitate others must necessarily lag behind.
Our ministers have no right to undertake, with the taxpayers' money, experiments as costly as these when immediate assistance is needed everywhere.
It is painful to note that, as far back as 1948, when the cost of living index stood at 155-0, the bureau of statistics, following an investigation bearing on the year ending August 31, proved that in Montreal 526,000 families and independent persons, with incomes in the neighbourhood of $3,000, were unable to make ends meet and that the average deficit was $8.19.
On the whole, since the publication of this report, the cost of living index has gone up 25 per cent. It is not hard to realize the plight of housewives and breadwinners at this time when the food index has gone up by 133-9.
In five years, the cost of meat has increased fourfold, while clothing, fuel and lighting also show a sharp increase.
A remarkable fact, however, is that while the salary cheque is too small to allow for proper family nourishment, dividends declared by various companies are higher than ever, and their profits greater than ever before in their history.
The Minister of Finance-
Writes UAction Catholique.
-does not seem to think that inflation has already been hard enough on the low-income taxpayers. He wants to pave the way for inflation, to help it along.

Viewed in that light, the sales tax increase is the worst thing that could happen to the Canadian people at this time, especially those who are unable to increase their income within a short time.
As a matter of fact, the 25 per cent increase in the sales tax, besides being inflationary, adds to the existing burden of taxation. It is an anti-social, vexatious and unfair tax, that should be abolished. Levied directly on the consumer, it adds to the cost of goods in strict ratio to its fixity, but when applied at the manufacturer's level it spirals up. In most instances, the dollar thereby extorted by the treasury costs the consumer three, four and even five dollars. For instance, the publicity, the advertising which enters for a certain proportion in the cost of any product, is taxed.
This tax on advertising means a further addition to the price the customer has to pay for the goods. At the various levels, wholesaler, distributor, jobber and retailer, the sales tax is applied several times, and this accounts for the frightful spread between the factory price and the retail price. The sales tax is a dreadful evil. I believe it should be replaced by increased import duties on wine and liquor.
Both in peacetime and in emergencies there is no respite for the Canadian taxpayer who last year contributed approximately $3,600 million in municipal, provincial and federal taxes. In 1952, the tax bill will exceed $4 billion. Of this tremendous taxation in a country of 14 million people, the federal government, true to the turn of mind of our centralists, takes the lion's share, or two-thirds. There remains 20 per cent for the ten provincial governments and 13 per cent for the 4,000 municipalities of this country.
Ten years ago, for example, the taxes collected at the three levels of government barely exceeded a billion dollars, one-half of which went to the federal government. 20 per cent to the provinces and 30 per cent to the municipalities. But the situation has changed considerably. The authorities do not seem to care if the municipalities, whose administration is the closest to the population and who are therefore in the best position to help our citizens, are incapable of balancing their budget and cannot meet their obligations, having been deprived of practically all their sources of revenue.
. Taxes which, normally, should fill their tills are diverted into the coffers of the federal government who uses them to further aims

infinitely more dangerous for the security of individuals and families than those pursued by municipal councils.
Those who claim that our cities, towns, and villages are not well run, since they have to report deficits year after year, forget that the property tax is practically their only source of revenue.
Far from correcting that abnormal situation, the government overtaxes our people, both directly and indirectly. The latter process, more cunning and hypocritical, is none the less quite distressing. Indirect taxation comprises chiefly excise duties on liquor, tobacco, cigarettes, automobiles, gasoline, furs, electrical appliances and countless items wrongly classed as luxuries, such as refrigerators, washing machines, radios, stoves, and so on. In many cases, customs duties add a substantial amount which has to be paid by the buyers.
The tax on home appliances is particularly hard on large families who rely on those articles to make housekeeping easier. Through this tax. an extremely heavy tribute is asked from the mother. It shows contempt for family life. The last budget is one of the worst, the most unfair people with modest means have had to bear for the past ten or fifteen years.
That was written in L'Action Catholique of April 12.
At a time when modern democracy should emphasize the part played by the family, the oldest organic cell in the world, and protect it because it is the best stabilizing factor, the family is overburdened with taxes.
The budget before us is directed against the family. The wealthy and the unmarried are treated with consideration but those classes of society the most in need of protection and support are burdened more heavily still.
According to a newspaper, a study by a group of economists shows that there are 150 taxes on the manufacture and sale of a lady's hat, 200 on a well-tailored dress, 120 on a man's suit and 150 on a loaf of bread.
On each package of cigarettes, the people of Chicoutimi will now pay 25 cents in taxes and over $1,000 on the purchase price of a $2,000 automobile.
For having failed to distinguish between the legal and technical aspects of our traditional economy, our politicians have passed from legitimate intervention to a deadly monopoly in the purely economic sphere. War placed all resources under government jurisdiction, it gave the state a governing hand in
The Budget-Mr. Gagnon our economy, it transformed certain activities into public utilities and afforded an opportunity of practising paternalism, that doctrine so dear to socialists.
The dominion government always finds an excuse to lay hands on other people's money.
Since the government invaded the field of income tax in 1917, it has collected from that source a total of nearly $11 billion, to which the excess profits tax adds some $3 billion. From June 1941 to 1950, it has collected $184 million in succession duties, $30 million of which were paid in 1950. Succession duties represent the real tax on capital. Yet, we ought to maintain legacies intact and prevent the state from absorbing, bit by bit, and from one generation to the next, the wealth of the country in such a way that it can no longer maintain itself.
The moral aspect of family capital is that it represents savings, that is, privations. It represents thousands of small pleasures and diversions of which parents have deprived themselves in order to leave their children in a better position. It is immoral to tax this effort as the dominion government has done and is still doing.
It must be remembered here that the two provinces of Ontario and Quebec alone paid 73 per cent of the total of $1,300,781,000 which personal and corporation income taxes and succession duties have brought to the federal treasury in 1950. The eight other provinces paid only $346,334,000 or less than the province of Quebec alone, which paid $354,000,000.
May I be permitted, in passing, to mention that in 1948, 12,300 persons or companies from Chicoutimi county, whom it is my privilege to represent in this house, paid the federal government $2,403,000 out of a total income of $32,064,000. I might add that Chicoutimi county included, in 1948, the county of Lapointe, represented today by my hon. friend opposite. We are in fourth place among the income tax payers of the province of Quebec, after Montreal, Quebec and St. Maurice. We are therefore entitled to mention it and to voice our grievances. Why are we taxed? For war. It has become a habit with the government.
Since 1935 the Liberal party has spent billions of dollars for military purposes. War has become its specialty. The tragedy begins once more. Nothing is changed. The same actors are once again found in the principal parts. The very same generation of men and

The Budget-Mr. Gagnon women is once more being called upon to pay-in blood and money the cost of our overseas ventures. Canada has taken its place among war-mongering nations and our ministers, unable to restore peace to the world, have decided that we would participate in the Korean conflict while awaiting another theatre of operations.
The Minister of Finance is taxing us to send our young people to their death in Asia. He is taxing us to produce planes and bombs in order that our Atlantic pact commitments may be carried out. What if the old age pension is not increased, what if invalids receive no financial assistance from the state, what if urgent works are abandoned, what if people are weary of hearing talk of massacres, rations and taxes? Those are things of no concern! We will make war alongside the United States if, when and wherever they will it, against Russia or China or anybody else.
We have lived through a period when our leaders were all but ready to canonize Stalin. Today the idea is to take him down from the pedestal where our prayers had put him.
Our leaders are wise, they have much experience. Their propaganda is clever. We fought for the freedom of nations during the second world war with our friends in Moscow. We shall fight again for freedom, but against them this time and with our friends in South Korea or elsewhere. It is always in the name of liberty that people are led to slavery. The Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson) chooses our enemies, and the Canadian people foot the bill for these changes. Our international policy is decided by dreamers who want Canada to put forth a war effort beyond her capacity and the Minister of Finance has to find the billions necessary to satisfy their unrestrained ambitions.
If those who are responsible for international policy worked as hard to ensure peace as they do to launch us on a new crusade, if the representatives who attend the meetings of the United Nations council gave more importance to moral values and to the true destiny of the world, if God held the place which belongs to Him in people's hearts and minds and at the meetings of the poor human beings who are vainly seeking a solution to the world's problems, there would be on this earth more happiness and welfare, less hardship and less tears. This armament race will be very costly.	,


The crown has squandered the goods it had acquired with the money of the people from 1939 to 1945. Plants, ships, equipment, material which had cost hundreds of millions to the workers of the country have been sold for a few thousand dollars. Political favourites or privileged companies have been given, so to speak, water power installations, telephone and telegraph lines, equipment, etc. And now we must start all over again, building airfields, machine shops and other plants, once more with the people's money.
Once more, billions of dollars will be thrown to the four winds for the benefit of munition makers and] international monopolistic profiteers.
I refuse to subscribe to such aims and to believe that it is on the battlefields of the Orient that we shall clinch the defeat of communism. We want peace, a noble, serene and dignified peace which will free our people of the crushing burden of taxes and allow them to progress in peace and honour. We wish to work, to suffer and to pay taxes to assure life but not death. I will therefore vote in favour of the amendment.
(Text):


Mr. C. W. Carter (Burin-Burgeo):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to take advantage of the opportunity afforded by this debate on the budget to give hon. members of this house a brief description of my riding and to inform them of our problems and our needs, a duty which perhaps I have delayed too long.
The riding of Burin-Burgeo extends along the south coast of Newfoundland, from Cape Ray in the southwest corner to Come-By-Chance in Placentia bay and includes all the numerous islands for which this beautiful bay is noted.
History records that as far back as 1621 Placentia bay was the base of operations for the famous pirate, Captain Peter Easton, and on the picturesque island of Oderin, where he was reported to have his headquarters, a mysterious oaken floor still exists at the bottom of a small salt water pond and is considered to be one of the several engineering feats attributed to this famous sailor.
Legend has it that one of Captain Easton's ships was sunk in a battle with another famous pirate by the familiar name Cruick-shank and that this shipload of treasure still rests on the ocean bottom beneath the cliffs of Cape Roger head, six miles across the bay from Oderin.

Pirate gold is also supposed to be buried in beautiful Cape Roger harbour, but all attempts to unearth it have been frustrated by mysterious water spouts. These spouts rush up through the sandy loam when the hole reaches a depth of seven or eight feet and continue to rise to a height of ten feet above sea level.
I mention these stories to emphasize the fact that Newfoundland is an old province with a history dating back centuries before that of the mainland and her communities are steeped in history and very rich in folklore.
Incidentally, I am hoping that these names may catch the attention of the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Mayhew) because I have been trying for some time to have a guardian placed on Cape Roger river and if the salmon are not sufficiently important, perhaps the buried treasure might provide an added inducement.
The riding which I have the honour to represent is a veritable paradise for both the sportsman and the artist. All along the one thousand miles of coast line the scenery is magnificent. High rocky cliffs rise perpendicular to the sea in their stark naked and rugged, beauty. Between these steep cliffs, so narrow as to be almost imperceptible, are numerous openings which run inland for miles, rivalling the fjords of Norway and ending in pools where beautiful salmon rivers cascade into the sea. In season these rivers and pools are teaming with salmon and salt water trout. A mile or so in the interior the country abounds with moose, caribou, partridge, rabbits and other game. The provincial government is already working to develop these natural attractions but it will take some time before they will be able to cater satisfactorily to the tourist business. Many fine salmon rivers are without protection of any kind, and it is hoped that before too long guardians will be placed not only on Cape Rogers river but on many others.
To get a picture of my riding you must visualize approximately one thousand miles of coast line studded with some 260 settlements perched close to the sea, their peaceful harbours dotted with tiny fishing boats riding at their moorings. Along the shore line nestling close to the sea the simple fishers' cottages though often poor and humble nevertheless extend unfailing welcome and boundless hospitality. In these 260 settlements live some 44,000 of the best people in the world, fisher folk who are the very salt of the earth.
50709-143J
The Budget-Mr. Carter They live close to nature and close to their God. They ask so little from life in this age of materialism that their humility is both touching and inspiring. They ask nothing but the bare necessities of life, and I know from personal experience that for years many of them have had to be content with much less than that. It is a great honour and privilege to serve such people, and I pray that my efforts will be worthy of their trust.
When the great issue of confederation came up my constituents gave it wholehearted support. They remembered the time when they had to exist on a government dole of 7 cents a day. They remembered the relative prosperity of their brothers fishing out of Lunenburg, of their relatives settled in Halifax, Toronto and Vancouver. They remembered the nice things in Eaton's and Simpson's catalogues on which no duty would have to be paid. They remembered the coastal services which they had enjoyed fifteen and twenty years ago, and which they had to forfeit along with their responsible government. They looked at their dilapidated wharves and breakwaters upon which not a cent had been spent for fifteen or twenty years, and they thought of the public services, the navigational aids and communication system enjoyed by the maritime provinces.
Then they reasoned: Surely confederation will bring us back at least the kind of services we used to enjoy twenty and thirty years ago, and perhaps a little better. They pictured Canada as a young giant just beginning to realize his strength and eager to use it by extending a helping hand to a weaker and less fortunate brother. I mention all these things to dispel any notion that Newfoundlanders voted for confederation to get family allowances. That was something outside their experience, and many actually doubted their existence.
Two years have now passed, and what is the position today? I think that ninety per cent of the people are still satisfied that confederation was the wisest and best course. They know now that the family allowance is a reality, and they have had time to realize what a blessing it really is. Our children are now comfortably and respectably clad irrespective of family income, and school attendance has become stabilized at a much higher level, so that the benefits of family allowances alone as an investment in the youth of our province are sufficient to justify the wisdom of confederation.
The social benefits of unemployment insurance, old age pensions and pensions for the blind are other blessings that are very greatly
2234	HOUSE OF
The Budget-Mr. Carter appreciated by our people, and we hope that in time it will be possible to extend unemployment insurance to include our fishermen. Then there -are the federal health benefits which I understand totalled $1 million last year. In my riding alone this has helped to provide three clinical boats whereby doctors can make periodical tours of their districts, and patients requiring hospitalization can be transported to the nearest cottage hospital to receive treatment under a provincial system of subsidized medicine. A new cottage hospital is being built at Channel with federal assistance at the rate of $1,000 per bed.
Then there are the improvements to our harbour facilities, marine installations, public wharves, breakwaters, slipways and protection works. In the majority of settlements this is the first money to be spent on public works for over fifteen years. Perhaps the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Fournier) is not used to being applauded for his efforts, but I feel that my constituents would want me to voice their appreciation to his department for the sympathetic consideration which has been given to these needs, and the improvements that are being accomplished through the untiring efforts of their district engineer and a small but efficient staff. They have not been able to accede to all our requests but it is very evident that they are carrying out a well considered plan to distribute their efforts over the whole province of Newfoundland as evenly and fairly as their limited staff and circumstances will permit. In this connection I should like to urge the Minister of Public Works to increase the staff of the Newfoundland office in order to alleviate the unfair burden which now falls upon the district engineer, and thus expedite the work of his department.
In looking back on confederation I believe that at least ninety per cent of our people, and possibly more, would appraise the benefits of confederation as I have outlined them and would feel that it was the right thing to do. That is not to say, however, that there have not been disappointments, and bitter disappointments too. The greatest disappointment of all was that the substantial reduction in our cost of living, to which all had looked forward with such great expectations, failed to materialize. This was due to a rise in prices on the mainland which Coincided with the date of union, together with the fact that Canadian National Railways chose to take advantage of loose wording in the terms of union to apply a system of freight rates far in excess of the preferential maritime rates which everyone, including those who negotiated and signed the terms of union, understood would apply to New-
[Mr. Carter.)

foundland. Recently the board of transport commissioners decided this question in favour of Newfoundland, but in the meantime Newfoundlanders had paid several million dollars more than they would otherwise have paid on goods brought into the province. Mail and passenger service have improved considerably, but in spite of the improvement they are not a great deal better than the service Newfoundlanders enjoyed twenty or thirty years ago, before they were forced to give up responsible government.
Several new post offices have been opened in my riding and a fairly satisfactory service has been extended to other settlements by including them in rural water routes, a kind of travelling post office. We are grateful to the Postmaster General (Mr. Rinfret) and his efficient staff for these improvements, and for the courteous and sympathetic consideration his officials give to all our requests. However, many difficulties and even hardships arise from the fact that regulations governing postal operations on the mainland are not at all applicable to Newfoundland. A good example of this is a regulation requiring a distance of two miles between post offices. This may be all right on the mainland where settlements are connected by road, but in Newfoundland very few settlements are connected by road. In order to get to a post office one must launch a boat and row over two miles of salt water. That is quite a different matter. When the men are away fishing the women and children have to do this. In view of the hardships and dangers involved, especially in stormy weather, I feel that this regulation should be relaxed or eliminated altogether as far as Newfoundland is concerned.
Then there is the system of remuneration, which is based upon the sale of stamps. On the mainland there is probably a direct relationship between the value of the stamps sold and the amount of work the postmaster has to do. In Newfoundland there is no such relationship, because the incoming mail is usually ten to fifteen times greater than the outgoing. Family allowances have made ready cash available to parents, and a large proportion of that cash finds its way to the mail order houses. As a result the number of incoming parcels has multiplied many times. This state of affairs is likely to continue indefinitely. This increased mail order business has resulted in increased c.o.d. deliveries, insured parcels, money orders and so on, all of which have no relation at all to the stamps sold. In addition, some postmasters have to sort and distribute mail for other smaller offices which sell their own stamps. As a consequence of all these factors which do not obtain to the same degree on

the mainland, the system of remuneration based upon stamp revenue is very unfair to Newfoundland postmasters. The same is true of rental rates of post office accommodation. Probably the maximum rates are satisfactory; but when you consider that in Newfoundland soft coal costs $25 per ton, the minimum rate of $1 per month is very low when heat, light and cleaning have to be provided as well.
While I am on this subject I should like to bring to the attention of this house the plight in which our 437 postmaster-telegraphers find themselves as a result of confederation. Prior to confederation they were civil servants and as such enjoyed certain privileges such as sick leave with pay and vacations with relief operators supplied at government expense. Today as a result of confederation, though their pension rights are safeguarded by the terms of union, they have lost their civil service status and their sick leave and vacation privileges, which had considerable value in terms of dollars and cents. As a result most postmaster-telegraphers are not able to take an annual vacation for the simple reason that they cannot afford to pay travelling, board and salary expenses for a relief operator, and in consequence their health is beginning to suffer. More serious still is the plight of those who need medical treatment, surgical operations and hospitalization, and must do without because they cannot afford the cost of a relief operator.
The sad thing about this whole affair is that now no one has any responsibility for them. The Canadian National Telegraphs regard them as postmasters. They are not telegraph employees, because the telegraph company merely rents their services from the Post Office Department. On the other hand the stamp revenue is too small to qualify them as full-time postmasters, so they are only part-time postmasters and part-time telegraphers, through between the two they are full-time employees and have more than a full-time job.
There is also the erroneous idea that the salaries of these people have increased considerably since confederation. Even if this were true it would be only fair and right because the work they have to do has multiplied many times, but from my own investigation I know it is not true. About one-third are actually better off. Another third have received increases just about sufficient to offset the loss of free vacations and sick leave with pay. The remainder get exactly the same salary as before, but the loss of sick leave and vacations with pay makes them definitely worse off than before confederation. Furthermore, their telegraph
The Budget-Mr. Carter
duties require them to work overtime and on Sundays, for which they are unable to claim any extra remuneration. I hope the ministers concerned will do everything possible to find a remedy for this situation because this state of affairs, while it may conform to a strict, literal interpretation of the terms of union, is definitely not in accord with the spirit of union nor with the spirit embodied in the terms of union.
Another big disappointment is the lack of Canadian National Telegraph service to smaller settlements. Most of these communities expected that confederation would restore those telegraphic and telephonic communications which they enjoyed some twenty years or more ago but which they lost along with their responsible government. These hopes have not been realized, and worse still there seems to be little chance that they will ever be realized, because Canadian National Telegraphs is organized to operate on a profit basis and most of these small offices would operate at a loss.
On the other hand there is a definite need for these telegraph and telephone services, a need all the more urgent because of lack of roads and other means of communication. We all know that a good system of telecommunications is absolutely essential to progress. In my province it is also essential to offset the handicap of isolation, to send a call for medical aid in time of sickness or accidents, to enable the bank fisherman to contact his family when his ship puts into port. How can we measure human values in terms of dollars and cents? Of what significance is a monetary deficit when human lives are at stake? During the last war these little offices were the means of saving the lives of many of our airmen who had to make forced landings in out of the way places. They were also the means of forwarding much valuable information to defence headquarters concerning submarines and other suspicious craft. In fact, the excellent work done by the aircraft detection corps would have been utterly impossible without the aid of these small stations. I submit, Mr. Speaker, that these small telegraph and telephone stations constitute an essential part of our defence program. This fact alone is sufficient to justify an expansion of the system. The importance of these small telegraph offices cannot be judged in terms of their revenue, because without them the revenues of the larger offices would be much less. It was gratifying to me to learn in a recent committee on railways and shipping that the Canadian National Telegraph Company has now initiated a definite policy with regard to the expansion of these services.

The Budget-Mr. Carter
The coastal services of the Canadian National Railways have increased their frequency to a little better than that enjoyed twenty years ago, but the number of ports served still totals only 73 out of 260. The ship used on the Placentia bay service has accommodation for only eight passengers, while the number requiring transportation averages around 30. I travelled on this ship and saw the terrible conditions that obtain. Passengers are forced to sit up all night huddled together in narrow alleyways or crouching on their suitcases. How could anyone with red blood in his veins help but feel a sense of indignation at seeing his fellow men subjected to such treatment? Conditions during stormy weather and the winter season are beyond description. They are made bearable only by the skill of the captain and his crew, and their general solicitude for their fellow man which often compels them to give up their berths to passengers thus sacrificing their own much needed rest and comfort.
I am satisfied that the local management is in no way to blame for this state of affairs. The blame rests with the mainland offices where policy in these matters is decided by people who, I believe, are fully aware of this situation. I realize that it must be a terrible dilemma to the Canadian National Railways to be required to operate as a private enterprise on one hand and as a public utility on the other, but nevertheless, for humanitarian reasons, these conditions which I have described from personal experience should not be permitted to exist.
The urgent need of at least three small passenger and cargo boats is apparent when it is realized that the Canadian National Railways in Newfoundland not only do not have sufficient passenger boats to take care of present traffic, but they have no spare boat in reserve in case of accident or emergency. Should one of the present ships be lost, the whole coastal service would collapse. To make matters worse, one of the ships now in service is over fifty years old and is due to be retired; another is approaching retirement age. We are all very pleased that a new ferry is being provided for the gulf service, but there is serious doubt of the wisdom of building at this time such a large ship as contemplated, requiring such extensive terminal facilities, harbour installations and improvements. Experienced captains and navigators have expressed serious doubts as to whether such a large ship can be safely manoeuvred during bad weather in the small space available in the terminal port.
On my way to attend this session I was met by a delegation from Channel and Port TMr. Carter.]
aux Basques, who felt that the proposed change in the location of terminals would have an adverse effect on the life of these twin towns. They expressed surprise and indignation that Canadian National Railways should finalize plans for such extensive changes without even consulting the town council or some local organization. I believe it would be wiser to build a smaller ferry, which in conjunction with the ships now in service would be big enough to take care of the peak load traffic but still small enough to use present installations. The money saved would provide for the coastal service those smaller ships which are needed just as urgently as the new ferry. Later on a second ferry might be provided if the need arose. The ships that the new ferry is supposed to release are not suitable for the coastal service because they are too big for most of the harbours and cannot be operated economically in that type of service.
In view of the important part played by the merchant navy in the two world wars, the provision of these small ships could be regarded as almost an essential part of our defence preparation. Because the need is so urgent, I plead with the Minister of Transport (Mr. Chevrier) to give serious consideration to these proposals.
Related to this subject is the case of wharfingers, of whom there are a considerable number. Prior to confederation the Newfoundland government paid these people for the handling of government-owned packages for the federal government without ingers have been required to handle parckages for the federal government without any remuneration whatever. It does not seem right morally, and it is certainly not democracy, that any person should be required to work for nothing or to give his services for nothing, even to the national government. I understand that statutory authority is lacking whereby the government is able to make such payments, but surely that is a simple matter to remedy. I trust that this little problem will be solved on the basis of what is right, rather than what is legal.
We are grateful, too, for what the Department of Transport has done to improve our navigational aids. But many more fog alarms, gas and whistle buoys and radio beacons are needed to afford our fishermen a standard of protection comparable to that enjoyed by the maritime provinces.
A few weeks ago my good friend the member for St. John's West (Mr. Browne) described to this house the terrible plight of our inshore fishermen owing to the market price of salt cod dropping from an average of $14 per quintal in 1949 to an average of $7 per quintal in I960. Some

received even less than that. The cost of living is still on the increase, and we hope that steps will be taken to ensure that our inshore fishermen receive a fair -return for their catch. In Ottawa fresh cod retails for 39 cents per pound, yet the fisherman receives only 3 or 4 cents per pound. Salt cod retails at 49 cents per pound, and the fisherman gets 10 to 12 cents per pound. I should explain, Mr. Speaker, that this fish is from the maritimes and not from Newfoundland. I understand that mainland firms are reluctant to buy Newfoundland fish from the marketing organization known as NAFEL. It is difficult to believe that processing and transportation can account for such tremendous price spreads. I feel that this is a situation which might well be investigated under the combines act.
In his reference to merchants, I am sure that the member for St. John's West did not intend to imply that all merchants exploit the fishermen. Possibly some do, but there are many who do not. Many merchants have invested their profits in the fishery and sustained heavy losses in the interests of the fishermen. There are also many smaller shopkeepers who take staggering risks in supplying for the fishery, and they get only a small commission for collecting the fish for the exporters.
Recently the restriction on the shooting of turrs was debated in this house. This is also another matter of great concern to our people for which we hope a satisfactory solution can be obtained.
I mention all these matters, Mr. Speaker, not in any spirit of complaining, but because they are a source of real dissatisfaction to a large number of my constituents and I feel I would be failing in my duty if I did not direct attention to them. Trivial though they may appear to be, nevertheless they are very important because they concern people and they represent points where our people feel that democracy has ceased to identify itself with their needs.
When Lincoln defined democracy as government of the people, by the people and for the people, he left no doubt that concern for people constitutes the very essence of democracy. Like the Sabbath, democracy was made for man and not man for democracy. I think we sometimes tend to forget this great truth. When we set up a democratic machine and try to fit man into it, when- we subordinate man to profits, to political considerations, to expediency or to any other thing, how much better are we than the Kremlin which sets up [DOT] the state above the individual?
The Budget-Mr. Carter
We may have all the exterior trappings of democracy; we may go through the democratic motions as often as we like; but unless we are motivated by a genuine care for the needs of mankind, in our own land and everywhere else, we do not have true democracy and we fool nobody, except perhaps ourselves.
I hope that the government will be able to give favourable consideration to the matters which I have brought to their attention and which mean so much to my people. We realize that our coastal and telegraph services cannot be brought up to standard overnight; but those conditions-such as those with regard to the postmaster-telegraphers, the wharfingers, the Placentia bay coastal boat service, and the postal regulations-which are causing such unnecessary hardship should be remedied at once. Immediate action is necessary to convince our people that government is not indifferent to their needs and to restore their faith in democracy.
I should like to repeat that we are grateful for what has been done so far and we appreciate the benefits of confederation, particularly the social benefits; because we are like our brothers from Quebec in that our Newfoundland families are extremely close knit.
Here, Mr. Speaker, as an English-speaking Canadian I should like to say to my Frenchspeaking colleagues how grateful I am for them and for the people they represent. Their way of life and the emphasis which they have always placed on those deep spiritual values symbolized by the home, the church, family ties and simplicity of life, give them much in common with the people of my own province. I should like to say that we Newfoundlanders are proud to join with them and with the other provinces in working out, under God, the true destiny of our young and vigorous nation.
I believe, Mr. Speaker, that the true destiny of our nation is to give to the world a demonstration of true democracy-an inspired democracy that will capture the hearts and minds of the millions in Asia, in India, in Africa, and in Europe who are now searching for a form of government that will meet all their needs and aspirations. These millions leave no room for doubt that they are not at all impressed by the brand of democracy that we have demonstrated to them to date.
This new democracy, this true democracy, will put people before things and service before profits. Industry and business, management and labour, will be inspired by a motive higher than profits; and out of their

The Budget-Mr. Carter sense of responsibility for the nation and their caring for the needs of people will come that creative thinking which will solve our housing problems and stabilize the purchasing power of our dollar. The labourer will give an honest day's work in return for an honest day's pay, and the individual production of real wealth will increase. Instead of shortages there will be abundance for all our own needs and plenty left over to give to those who have not. Along with our gifts we will give our hearts so that our assistance may have a spiritual value as well as a material value.
Freedom of enterprise will not be the freedom of the jungle. There will be no strikes because all disputes will be settled on a basis of what is right instead of who is right. There will be no poverty because when everyone cares enough and shares enough, everyone will have enough. Honest prices and honest profits along with increased production per man will lower the cost of living. Communism will wither in the face of this superior idea by which it will be outmoded and outlived. Self control in the individual, which in its highest form is God control, will make government controls unnecessary; because the more that people govern themselves, the less they have to be governed.
Government will present issues to the people on a moral basis instead of on an economic, legal or political basis and people will be taken into partnership with government and fully briefed for the part they have to play. Individuals and organized groups will not bargain with their votes nor try to impose their will on the nation, nor will they seek advantages at the expense of others.
In parliament there will be total honesty between parties and between members: total honesty in debate, honesty of motives and honest admission of mistakes and failures. We can best preserve peace by removing the causes of war, and most of the causes of war, Mr. Speaker, lie within ourselves. This new order cannot be built without sacrifice. Temporarily we may have to sacrifice our standard of living. We shall certainly have to sacrifice our greed, our selfishness, our ambition and our comparative moral standards. We cannot build a new world and retain the old evils. We shall all have to change; because as I am, so is my nation. We shall have to learn to live on a basis of absolute moral standards. We shall have to match our external defence program by developing our internal defences of moral and spiritual strength; and we can do that only by exercising moral judgment and by making moral decisions.
This, Mr. Speaker, is my idea of true democracy. This is my blueprint for a new Canada. This I believe is Canada's true destiny. These are the things I want to fight for in my home, in my riding, in my province and in this parliament.


Mr.  W. Chester S. McLure@Queens: In my first words, Mr. Speaker, I wish to congratulate the hon. member from the tenth province on his wonderful address with reference to his constituency and the province of Newfoundland. I must say that I enjoyed it greatly indeed; but I want to give him this warning. If he expects this government to fulfil the terms of confederation, he will have to be on tap each session and demand the fulfilment of each one of those terms. This I know from past experience with reference to the province of Prince Edward Island.
Canada is taking part in the present momentous struggle with communism. Military preparedness must play a large part in the administration of this government. Hence the huge budget presented to this house on Tuesday, April 10, by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott). It is equally important that our domestic problems are not entirely neglected; for instance, unemployment, old age pensioners, retired pensioners, the incapacitated and the helpless. Many of these are on starvation allowances at the present time. Without any interference with military preparedness, but by real co-operation, we could become producers by using our manpower who are not physically fit for military purposes or military training, and we could thus continue -and I address this remark to the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Fournier)-public works and other essentials both for war and for peace.
A question arises, and it is heard quite often: Is Canada at war? The answer to that question by some people is yes, and by other people it is no. We have had no declaration of war since 1939 when Canada declared war. But on the other hand, we have never had a declaration of peace; therefore we must still be at war. At any rate, our soldiers and airmen are fighting today; our men are in training; our sailors and our marines are all in the fray, and we are having casualties announced among our men, and some of them have made the supreme sacrifice. I repeat we must still be at war. Still our government is making great preparations, and I hope they are making preparations for a global war, which I also hope may never come.
I am glad to note that in this budget debate Mr. Speaker has allowed a very wide latitude of discussion. This enables one to speak with reference to his own province

and his own constituency. The budget is remarkable in a great many ways. Some of the statements that we have seen in the press since the budget was brought down have called it by a great many varied names. One of them was that it is a most senseless budget. When one looks at it he considers that there are many things in it, and also many surprises. When the hon. member for Hastings-Peterborough (Mr. White) was speaking the other night I noticed he said that one of the surprises to him was the discriminatory taxation on the fur industry. Another great surprise to me was that I did not find, either in the estimates or in the speech of the minister, any amount included for damages to Prince Edward Island because of the railway strike.
The legislative assembly of Prince Edward Island in an emergency session called on September 7, 1950, asked that the dominion government be assessed owing to the failure of the government to keep the Borden-Tormen-tine ferry in operation during the railway strike. It was a surprise to me that no reference was made to it in the budget, and I am inclined to believe that the Minister of Finance did not know that there was an election in sight in the province of Prince Edward Island, or a reference to it would have been made in the budget, or in the estimates.
Budgets come and budgets go. Since two of them have gone by I must say that there is some record in connection with this one. The minister has the record of producing three budgets in a year and thirteen days. I think this is a record that no other minister of finance of Canada has ever held. The first two are gone with the wind, and this one is remarkable in several ways. The budget is being criticized; yet it is claimed by the government side that it is a budget for economy. Perhaps it is, but I do not wish them to economize to the detriment of commitments they have made, which should be fulfilled.
I suppose the Minister of Public Works will now blame the Minister of Finance because public works such as the dominion building in Charlottetown, which has been promised for four years and more-in fact at the last two elections-


Alphonse Fournier: Did the hon. member promise it?


Mr. McLure:: I suppose it will be postponed until the eve of another election.


Alphonse Fournier: I am told the hon. member promised it.


Winfield Chester Scott McLure: I did not hear the minister.
The Budget-Mr. McLure


Alphonse Fournier: I am informed that the hon. member promised that public building to the people there.


Winfield Chester Scott McLure: I sure did; I really and honestly believed what the minister said.


Alphonse Fournier: You can have faith in me.


Winfield Chester Scott McLure: We are waiting, and there has been no statement yet with regard to what we are to have there. I do hope that even after this budget the Minister of Public Works will get together with the Minister of Finance and treat my constituency and my province in regard to public works in the same way as he is treating his own province and his own constituency.


Alphonse Fournier: We are doing a little more for the hon. member's province.


Winfield Chester Scott McLure: I suppose that must be treated as a hope. I might add, Mr. Speaker, that with all the power vested, as it is, in the ministers of the crown, when they start making arrangements for preparedness for war, I hope that they make a list of the provinces that have had nothing to do with the preparation for war, the supplying of materials for war-I am now speaking of the last war-and give them an opportunity to do some of that work at this time. For instance, I am hoping that Prince Edward Island will have an opportunity. During the last war, out of the hundreds of millions of dollars spent for war purposes, Prince Edward Island received something less than one-tenth of one per cent of the disbursements made to the upper provinces.
For years we have been struggling to get some further fulfilment of the terms of union. Now that provision is being made to spend vast sums of money, as set out in the estimates, for the erection of new plants, and the taking over of plants already in existence, this might be an opportune time for the government to implement the recommendations of the Andrew Rae Duncan commission of 1926. I have mentioned this matter before in connection with harbour improvements at Charlottetown, and the important recommendation respecting the marine railway slip at that city.
This marine railway slip should have been built long ago. It has been promised to us by all governments. Now would be the opportune time to have it built, because it would give our machine shops and foundries an opportunity in these days of preparation for war to do certain work on boats they have thus far been unable to do because of the lack of the marine railway slip. With the marine railway slip we could take care of the repairs connected with the Borden-Tormentine ferry service, and repairs to the
2240

The Budget-Mr. McLure boats on the Wood Island-Caribou route. In addition to that there are in service boats such as the Brant, the Saurel and others, that are laid up during the winter, or are performing other tasks in the maritime provinces. In servicing these boats, in addition to smaller craft such as tugs, we would have a source of employment for, according to the estimate, some two hundred men annually. I say that now would be the time to make that expenditure so as to provide a service absolutely essential to Charlottetown. We need it so as to give employment to the men in the machine shops.
At the time of the last war we did obtain a few small subcontracts for the repairing of corvettes. Our men did an excellent job in all the work they had to do. However there was some work below the waterline they were not permitted to do. If some of the government contracts are to be decentralized, if some of the centralization which has worked to the detriment of the maritime provinces is to be eliminated, we would ask at this time consideration in respect to the building of this marine railway slip.
During the last war we did make repairs to some marine boats, and I am glad to say departmental records show that the workmanship was satisfactory, and that the cost of repairs done in the machine shops and foundries at Charlottetown was less than at any other point where similar repairs were done. This point in itself should be of interest to the government, and afford us an opportunity to have these public works built in Prince Edward Island, and more particularly in the city of Charlottetown.
I should like to say a few words on another matter. During the last war money was spent recklessly indeed. It was spent as Monte Carlo gamblers would have spent it, and without any incentive, apparently, to look after more than a few of the provinces of Canada while, at the same time, making it more difficult for the rest of us. However in Prince Edward Island when soldiers, sailors, fliers, food, bond purchasers and more taxes were required the people of that province did more per capita than those of any other province in Canada. That is a record of which we are proud, notwithstanding the fact that we were not given any work so that we might keep the labouring element of our population at home. They had to follow the contracts to cities in other provinces.
At six o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at eight o'clock.


Mr. A. F. Macdonald (Edmonton East) moved: the second reading of Bill No. 174, respecting the Ruthenian Greek Catholic Episcopal Corporation of Canada.


Mr. Green:: Could we have an explanation?


Albert Frederick Macdonald: 
[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the standing committee on miscellaneous private bills.

Albert Frederick Macdonald: the second reading of Bill No. 175, to incorporate the Ukrainian Catholic Episcopal Corporation of Western Canada.


Howard Charles Green: Could we also have an explanation of this bill?


Albert Frederick Macdonald: As has
been stated in connection with Bill No. 174 which has just been accorded second reading, the Ruthenian Greek Catholic Episcopal Corporation was incorporated in 1913. The church has increased very materially in numbers since that time. In consequence of this increase, the church has been divided into three dioceses each presided over by a bishop. In order to properly administer the property, business and temporal affairs of each diocese, incorporation is desirable.
The purpose of the present bill is to incorporate the diocese of western Canada which is presided over by His Excellency Bishop Savaryn at Edmonton. The diocese includes the provinces of Alberta and British Columbia, the Yukon Territory and the areas in the Northwest Territories immediately north of Alberta and British Columbia. As hon. members will observe, the bill contains the clauses customarily granted by parliament on the incorporation of a religious diocese respecting bylaws, holding of real property, transfer of property, borrowing and investment powers. I suggest that the bill be accorded second reading and referred to the committee on miscellaneous private bills where an explanation of the powers sought will be given.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the standing committee on miscellaneous private bills.
80709-144J
Private Bills

Mr. H. P. Cavers (Lincoln) moved: the second reading of Bill No. 176, to incorporate the Ukrainian Catholic Episcopal Corporation of Eastern Canada.


Mr. Lennard:: I might say I have no objection to this bill-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member for Lincoln.


Frank Exton Lennard: I was merely asking for an explanation.


Harry Peter Cavers: Mr. Speaker, this bill is presented on the petition of His Excellency Bishop Borecky who presides over the diocese of eastern Canada for the Ukrainian Catholic Episcopal Corporation. The bishop resides in Toronto, and his spiritual jurisdiction extends to the provinces of Ontario, Quebec, the maritime provinces and Newfoundland. By this bill it is sought to confer corporate entity on the diocese, and it is in accord with the usual form for the establishment of a diocese of this kind. The petitioner requests the powers in the bill to administer their property, to carry on the ordinary business of the diocese and the temporal affairs of the corporation, which are generally the management and control of the various officers, agents and servants of the corporation. I would suggest that the bill be accorded second reading and referred to the committee on miscellaneous private bills.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the standing committee on miscellaneous private bills.

Harry Peter Cavers: the second reading of Bill No. 177, to incorporate the Mercantile and General Reinsurance Company of Canada Limited.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Could we have an explanation of this bill?


Harry Peter Cavers: This bill seeks to give incorporation to a company now carrying on business in England, which is known by a similar name. This company seeks to carry on its legitimate business of insurance and reinsurance in Canada, as they have been doing for some years in England. They merely seek subsidiary powers to carry on the reinsurance business in Canada. The types of insurance it is sought to carry on are fire insurance, accident insurance, aircraft insurance, automobile insurance, guarantee insurance and the usual types of business falling within the scope of that type of company. The bill

Private Bills
is drawn in accordance with the requirements of the Canadian and British Insurance Companies Act, and carries the approval of the superintendent of insurance. The bill provides that substantial amounts will be deposited with the superintendent of insurance before the company commences to do business in this country.
I would therefore suggest that the bill be accorded second reading and referred to the committee on miscellaneous private bills.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I should like to make a few remarks on this bill and to ask the hon. member who introduced it if he will be kind enough when closing the debate on second reading to reply to some questions of a general nature which I should like to place before him.
Personally I welcome this bill, which on its face seems to simply seek to incorporate in Canada a company presently incorporated in the United Kingdom and which no doubt is already doing business in this country. I think that is a desirable thing to have done with these companies which at the moment are unincorporated branches of companies in other countries. I believe they should be incorporated in this country, because then shares will have to be offered to the public in Canada, and there will be Canadian directors and so on. This suggests two things. The first is the confidence of these companies in the future of Canada. The second is an increasing degree of control by Canadians over the affairs of corporations doing business in this country. These are both healthy trends, in my opinion.
The questions I should like to address to the hon. member who introduced the bill are these. First, what is the dollar volume of the annual business presently being done by the company in Canada, on the basis of which I presume it seeks incorporation? I do not imagine that if the company were doing only a small or relatively negligible amount of business in this country it would consider it worth while to incorporate. I should imagine the company hopes and intends to increase the volume of its business in Canada. If that is the object I think it is a desirable one. It is the object which on the face of it I attached to the desire to incorporate, and I should like confirmation of that fact and information as to the present volume of business being done.
Then I notice that all the persons seeking incorporation are residents of the city of Toronto. I should like to know whether any of these persons are at present directors of the company in England, or whether any person in Canada has been appointed a

director of the British company. Then, coming as I do from western Canada, where we have a great interest in industrial and commercial enterprise and expansion of all sorts I should like to know whether at present the company does any substantial amount of business in western Canada and whether, in view of the increased interest the company is showing in this country, it intends to make an effort to extend its business in the west. I suppose I have certain misgivings consequent upon the fact that according to section 1 of the bill all these gentlemen are from Toronto, and I wonder if they have that intimate knowledge of and unbounded confidence in the growth of western Canada in general and British Columbia in particular which is felt by those of us who know that country well.


Mr. Gibson:: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the questions the hon. member is addressing to the sponsor of this bill would not more appropriately be asked in the committee to which the bill would be referred later.


Mr. Cruickshank:: Speaking to the point of order, apparently there are a few members of this committee who are not as interested in protecting the interests of western Canada as others are. This is the only opportunity the hon. member for Kamloops (Mr. Fulton) will have to obtain this information. Many of us from western Canada are vitally interested in these matters. I was particularly interested, for instance, in the question of the volume of business being done in western Canada, and I was also interested in whether or not any Canadians are directors of the British company.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I quite appreciate that it is not proper to have questions and answers at this stage, but I would point out that here we are being asked for approval of the principle on second reading.


Mr. Harris (Grey-Bruce):: And you approved that in your opening sentence.


Edmund Davie Fulton: That involves the adoption of a motion by this house. My approval would be based upon certain conclusions I have drawn from the nature of the bill itself, because we have not had a very extensive explanation by the hon. member who introduced it. Therefore before I give my formal approval' to second reading I should like the answers to those questions, to confirm or otherwise the conclusions I have drawn. That is why I am putting these questions. I do not intend to take up much time or to talk out the bill, even if that were possible. I just want to place certain questions and general conclusions before the hon. member

which I would like him to either confirm or deny, following which I will be able to make up my mind as to whether or not I, as one member of this house, should approve the bill on second reading.


Mr. Speaker:: On the point of order, I might say there is some substance in the point raised by the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Gibson). However, I think I should allow the questions to stand. The hon. member who is introducing the bill may not have the information, and it might be more appropriate to get the information in committee. If the hon. member can answer the questions, I think he should be given an opportunity of doing so. At this time I might say that I do not think the questions should be repeated by other hon. members, but the hon. member for Kamloops (Mr. Fulton) has asked the questions and I will allow them to stand.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. There is one other matter on which I should like to make some remarks. In introducing the bill the hon. member for Lincoln (Mr. Cavers) referred to the carrying on of a general insurance business. That raises in my mind a question which is perhaps not very material, but on which he might enlighten me. I notice the name under which the company seeks incorporation is the Mercantile and General Reinsurance Company of Canada Limited. Of course, there is a fairly substantial difference between a straight insurance business, where a company accepting a direct risk charges for that risk a premium which is higher or lower in proportion as the risk is greater or less. There is quite a difference between that and the business of reinsurance where some companies who have issued policies of insurance accepting risk turn around to other groups and ask them if they will reinsure the company against a loss under the policy issued. It is quite a different type of business, and quite a different type of risk, in so far as reinsurance is concerned. The name of the company would give the impression it is going to undertake only the business of reinsurance. I would ask the hon. member who introduced the bill and made the statement, which seemed to me to imply the company was going to carry on the business of general insurance, whether there is a limitation. Does the company intend to undertake all forms of insurance, both direct and reinsurance, or will it confine its activities to one form or the other? If the hon. member can give the answers to those questions, Mr. Speaker, I for one would find them helpful indeed in making up my mind as to how to vote on the motion for second reading.
Private Bills


Mr. J. H. Ferguson (Simcoe North):: Mr. Speaker, any insurance company will carry on a business of reinsurance. Quite often a primary writer is asked to reinsure a risk, and he will take part of that risk. To handicap this insurance company applying for a reinsurance charter by asking the representatives to state whether they are ever going into the primary writing of insurance seems hardly fair. I do not think any group organizing a company would like to pin themselves down by saying they did not intend in the future to write primary risks. They are asking for a charter now to start as a reinsurance company. As a matter of fact, practically every primary writing insurance company does a reinsurance business today.


Edmund Davie Fulton: On a question of privilege; I am sure the hon. member would not want to take from my words an inference which was not there or which I did not intend. I did not intend to suggest that this company should be restricted to one or the other type-of business. I merely asked for information as to whether they desired to restrict themselves to one or the other type of business. I was not able to gather clearly from the remarks of the hon. member who introduced the bill what was intended, and that was my only purpose in asking the question.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. If the hon. member for Lincoln speaks now he will close the debate.


Harry Peter Cavers: Mr. Speaker, in answer to the question directed to me by the member for Kamloops (Mr. Fulton) as regards the amount of insurance which this company may undertake or which is now carried on by the company, section 7 (1) of the act provides that the company shall not commence any business of insurance until $250,000 of its capital stock has been bona fide subscribed. With regard to the amount of insurance that is already being done in this country, I am not in a position to say now how much is in force, but I would be prepared to have available for the hon. member in committee stage the amount of insurance that is now being carried.
With regard to the incorporators, it will be noted that all the incorporators reside in the city of Toronto. These gentlemen are also all solicitors, and I assume that I do not have to remind him that probably they are the original incorporators of the company. I am not able to give any undertaking as to whether they have or have not any shares in the English company. However, I think that, as solicitors, they are entitled to apply for incorporation. I hope that will be a sufficient answer to that question.

Private Bills-Divorce
So far as western business is concerned, I am not able to say whether the company have any western business, but I am sure if they undertake to carry on business in Canada they will wish to carry on business in all parts of Canada. I am sure that they will be anxious to go into western Canada where very much fine business is done. No doubt they will wish to avail themselves of the opportunity of obtaining that business.
Speaking of the reinsurance features, I probably did not make myself clear. I think the bill in which incorporation is sought for this company provides not only for the right to reinsurance but also the right to carry on those types of insurance that are set out in section 6.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion?


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the standing committee on banking and commerce.

Mr. H. W. Winkler (Lisgar) moved: that the following bills be read the second time:
Bill No. 178, for the relief of Leah Berniker Berger-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 179, for the relief of Betty Suffrin Sher-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 180, for the relief of Muriel Violet Marcella Barkas Sauve-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 181, for the relief of Lois Christine Flemming Foster-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 182, for the relief of Joseph Napoleon Romeo Moisan-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 183, for the relief of Catherine Veronica Joynt Bragdon-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 184, for the relief of Sarah Alice Thompson Getzler-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 185, for the relief of Grace Andersen Hallam-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 186, for the relief of Edna May Walker Green-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 187, for the relief of Donald George Story-Mr. Winkler.


George Alexander Cruickshank: Mr. Speaker, I should like to have these bills read separately. There is a reason for that. I understand that it is not possible otherwise to ask questions and obtain the information I should like to have concerning each bill. I am sure there are other members of the house who would like to have this information as well. For instance, I fully expect the member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Gibson) to speak along the same line.
I want to know, Mr. Speaker, how many children there are. I am giving an example of the type of information I want. I understand I cannot ask such questions if the bills are grouped. I should like to obtain

this necessary information in connection with each one of these bills. I want to know how many children there are in the families, and what provision has been made for their education-, both spiritual and academic. I am sure that other hon. members, particularly those from the province from which these bills come, desire to have this information to report to their constituents. I should like, Mr. Speaker, to have each bill read separately.
(Translation):


Paul-Edmond Gagnon: Mr. Speaker, once again I wish to oppose the enactment of this legislation designed to dissolve the marriage bonds and increase the number of divorces in Canada.
According to statistics that appeared in the newspapers recently, there are fewer divorces in Canada this year. Let us rejoice over the good news.
Our duty as members of parliament, however, consists in enacting legislation that is not at cross purposes with moral law. We must protect institutions considered sacred by the Catholic church, the United church and many others.
The rule decreeing that marriage is indissoluble may seem harsh, yet it was made in man's interest. It is the best ally and indispensable guardian of family happiness. It provides for a solid foafodation of the home, even before the house comes into being, since it leads those planning to marry to prepare for their future carefully.
The young man and the young woman who know that marriage is indissoluble, who have a sense of responsibility, do not doubt for an instant that marriage is something particularly great and important, to be entered into only after serious preparation.
At a time when the world is morally adrift, one has to be strong enough to go against the current. We must show ourselves fearless defenders of the family. Let our actions, and especially our legislation, impress upon those around us the greatness and beauty of Christian marriage. I believe that in doing so, we shall effectively promote the prosperity of the country, the happiness of our fellow countrymen and the salvation of their souls.
(Text):


Mr. Daniel Mclvor (Fort William):: It is
well known, Mr. Speaker, that I am not in favour of divorce. But these bills have been thoroughly examined by a committee of intelligent members of the other place, and I do not think that we are showing good judgment by not passing them. The thing that concerns me is not the situation when a couple comes to the place where they seek

divorce. I think it is the duty of every member of this house and of every dignitary in the church to kill the thing that causes divorce, whatever that thing is. Whether it is selfishness on the part of one or of the other or whether it is a habit that creeps into the home, that thing should be crushed; and that is the thing that concerns us.


Mr. Clarence Gillis (Cape Breton South):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member who has just taken his seat has provoked my thoughts on this subject. He says he is opposed to divorce. So am I. But it is a rather peculiar situation to have the House of Commons constituted as the court of last instance which puts the final O.K. on divorce bills, accepting them like a pipe line-the whole stream of them-without ever having seen anything of the evidence, or examined it in any way, shape or form. Notwithstanding that fact, we are the people who say, in the final analysis, that these divorces are granted equally. I just cannot understand that situation.
The hon. member for Fraser Valley (Mr. Cruickshank), who wisely and courageously on many occasions rises in his place in this house and asks for the details of anything that affects the country, I think was well advised tonight when he stood up and said that at least these bills should be taken one at a time. If we have not the time to examine these bills, understand them, and make an intelligent decision on them, then we have not any right to have them here. In that connection, may I say that not so long ago there was introduced into this house a bill that had for its purpose the removal of divorce bills as such from the House of Commons and from the other place and the transferring of that responsibility not to a court in the province from which these bills come, and which is opposed to a divorce court, but to a federal court that is already established. If that were done, men who are trained in law and who understand this subject would be handling these bills and it would be done without the cost that there is today in connection with them. I think they could be handled much more cheaply in that way and without the undue publicity that there is now all through the country. This evidence goes out in book form. These cases make the best true stories that you could pick up. We argue in the house for that kind of thing, not because I believe in divorce- because I do not-but simply because I think it would make this matter much cleaner and would move it into a court administered by trained personnel, men who are better qualified than we are to make decisions.
I hate to sit in this house and be a member who accepts all of these bills en bloc and
Private Bills-Divorce
joins in putting the final O.K. of the House of Commons on them, when I have not seen the evidence and do not know whether or not these bills should be granted. For a time I served on the standing committee on miscellaneous private bills. When these bills would come before that committee I always objected to them on the grounds which the hon. member for Fraser Valley has stated. First, if there are children affected, they are the real sufferers. Second, in the province of Quebec where you can get a legal separation, if the parents are legally separated and neither is in a position to maintain the children or do not want to accept the responsibility, there are organizations which will look after the children. In some cases, however, when parents came before us we were told that this would be done as long as there was only a legal separation but that in the event of divorce these children were cut adrift, that the organizations then would not accept the responsibility for them. In many cases in which we are passing bills of this kind, we may be depriving children of the protection they are now receiving, in view of the fact that they will lose that protection in the event of a divorce being granted.
All of these things cannot be taken up, examined and decided on by laymen who merely take this business as an added responsibility and just get rid of it as fast as they can. This is a serious subject. You are dealing with the very foundation of the nation when you are dealing with family life. I still say that the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) was right; he is a minister of the church. While we may disagree with him in some things, I think we shall have to agree with the principle of the bill that he presented to the house for the purpose of placing this matter in legal channels, in the hands of people who are able to handle it properly, thus getting rid of the publicity that there is in connection with it at the present time and doing away with the possibility of collusion, manipulation and all that kind of thing that goes on under present circumstances.
I just wanted to make those remarks because I think the time has come when both the other place and the House of Commons will have to consider, more seriously than they have in the past, business such as we are transacting tonight.


Mr. Angus Maclnnis (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, I think that the discussion so far has been all out of order. The last time when similar divorce bills were before the house-I think it was a week ago tonight- a similar debate took place. I drew to the

Private Bills-Divorce
attention of the Speaker-who at that time was not yourself-the fact that the debate was out of order. We are not debating the right of this parliament to deal with divorce cases. At the moment there is a particular point that you have to settle, namely, whether it is necessary, when an hon. member asks for it, that each bill be taken separately. But even if each bill is taken separately, such speeches as we have heard up to the present time are out of order.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Why?


Angus MacInnis: Because the speeches did not deal with the principle involved in the bills before the house. It is not the principle of whether-as most hon. members say when they rise in their places-we are or are not in favour of divorce. Surely, it is a silly statement for anyone to make, and particularly for a member of parliament to make, that he is in favour of divorce. No one in his right senses is in favour of divorce?


Edmund Davie Fulton: Are you?


Angus MacInnis: Wait a minute, and I will tell you whether I am in favour of divorce or not.


Edmund Davie Fulton: You are going to tell us, but you say it is a silly statement to make.


Angus MacInnis: I say it is a silly statement for any member of this house to say that he is not in favour of divorce. I am not in favour of people divorcing each other just for the sake of divorcing each other. But I do believe, sir, it is the consensus in all of the civilized countries of the world-nearly all countries have divorce laws-that when two people cannot live together in harmony, each with respect for the other, it is not only desirable but it is the decent thing to let them separate. I cannot conceive of anything more indecent than for two people to live together in the intimacy of married life when the love and devotion that brought them together in the first place have disappeared. That is the way it appears to me, and to that extent I am in favour of divorce.
Now, sir, I am making a speech myself, and I am just as much out of order as the other hon. members were. 1 just wanted to draw a point of order to your attention- and perhaps we had better deal first with the point raised by the hon. member for Fraser Valley (Mr. Cruickshank), whether you must, sir, at the request of any hon. member deal with each divorce case separately or, as we have always done, and as the custom has been for years, when a particular divorce case is not opposed, deal with them en bloc, because they have already been dealt with, not by people who do not know anything 
about legal procedure in those matters, but largely by lawyers who have become expert in dealing with divorce cases. I think, sir, that you should give your decision on the point raised by the hon. member for Fraser Valley now.


Mr. Riley:: What God has joined together.


Mr. Speaker:: As the hon. member for Vancouver East has said, it is not in order to discuss the principle of divorce generally on these bills. In my opinion the proper time to discuss that was when the bill to which the hon. member for Cape Breton South (Mr. Gillis) referred was before the house. The principle on which discussion can take place now is the principle involved in these bills, not on the question of divorce generally.
As the hon. member for Vancouver East has said, it has been the custom in this house to pass these bills by one motion, for the reason that the principle involved in all the bills is practically the same. It is true, as the hon. member for Fraser Valley has said, that in some instances there are children, and in other instances there are none. There is also the question which some hon. members may like to raise as to whether or not the party who has been wronged is being properly provided for. I do not know whether the act of parliament can do anything about that, but these matters can be considered in the committee on miscellaneous private bills to which these bills are referred.
As an hon. member has said, these cases have been considered in the Senate. After they receive second reading here, they are then referred to the committee on miscellaneous private bills, where the details on each case can be considered. I cannot rule that all the bills should be passed by one motion, unless the house so wishes me to do. I merely repeat that that has been the practice for a long time, but unless there is unanimous consent I will have to call the individual bills. Is it the pleasure of the house that I should call all the divorce bills which are on the order paper by one motion?


Some hon. Members:: Yes.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the house that the motion for second reading of these bills shall be adopted?


Some hon. Members:: Yes.


Howard Charles Green: No.


Stanley Howard Knowles: On division.


Mr. Speaker:: Carried on division.
Motion agreed to on division, and bills read the second time.



BRITISH COLUMBIA TELEPHONE COMPANY

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Tuesday, April 3, consideration of the motion of Mr. Applewhaite for the second reading of Bill No. 116, respecting British Columbia Telephone Company.
Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker, this bill to amend the charter of the British Columbia Telephone Company was last up for second reading on April 3. On that occasion I was able only to commence my remarks, and I am afraid I shall not be able to finish them this evening. However, I had pointed out that the Vancouver city council are opposing this bill on two grounds: in the first place on the ground that an excessive increase in capital is being sought by the company; and in the second place because under the present charter there is no protection against unreasonable charges being levied against the British Columbia Telephone Company by its parent and affiliated companies.
To deal with the question of the increase sought being excessive. In 1947, just four years ago, this company obtained an increase in capital from $11 million to $25 million. Of that total of $25 million, $5 million still remains in the treasury, although since I spoke early this month the $5 million in shares is being placed on the market. The company now asks for an increase from $25 million to $75 million, which of course would mean trebling the capital structure; if it is given this increase the result will be that in a period of four years the capital stock will have been increased sevenfold. As I said a moment ago, the company still has $5 million of the $25 million present capital; therefore, if there is the increase from $25 million to $75 million it will have available as share capital a total of $55 million unissued.
For many years they have been paying dividends of 8 per cent on their common shares. Now when they are planning to issue common shares we find that instead of getting $100 for those shares they are able to get $132.50. That means that on common stock issued at the present time and in the future they are able to get an extra third, approximately, over and above the face value of that stock.
Their published plans with regard to the $5 million in shares now in process of being issued are that $4 million is to be in common shares and $1 million in preferred shares. On the common shares now being issued the company will get $4 million, the face value, or the par value; and in addition will receive another $1,300,000, because these shares bring in $132.50 each.
British Columbia Telephone Company
Furthermore the present holders of common shares are getting share warrants which will give them the right to subscribe to these new shares now being issued on the basis of one new share for each two common shares held at the present time. On the other million dollars of the $5 million which, as I said, is being issued in the form of preferred shares, they will also get more than the face value of $100. They are receiving something like $102 per share.
So much for the capital; for that method of raising money for expansion-because, of course, the plea made for this increase is that the money is needed for purposes of expansion. But the practice of the company in financing has been not to rely upon shares alone, but to finance only to the extent of approximately 40 per cent by way of shares, and to raise the other 60 per cent by way of bonds and similar securities. So that if the company gets $55 million in share capital to use, it will be able to raise, on the 40/60 basis, an additional $82,500,000 by way of bonds. If this present increase in share capital is granted, this will give a possible $137,500,000 for expansion, plus the premiums on the shares to which I have referred, plus a very large depreciation reserve amounting to approximately $17 million at the end of 1950. So that the company will have available for expansion purposes over $150 million.
Let us look at the requirements. The sponsor of the bill said the company would require about $10 million a year for a period of ten years. Even if that is so, it means that with this increase the company will have sufficient money for at least fifteen years. But the company itself, at a hearing before the board of transport commissioners last year when consideration was being given to an application for an increase in telephone rates, said that its expansion program would be lasting until 1952, which is next year. And just a little over two weeks ago, at a hearing before the board of transport commissioners held here in Ottawa for permission to issue the five million in shares to which I referred, we find that counsel for the company said, as reported in a press dispatch of April 4, that the funds were to be used as part of an expansion program stretching into 1953- which is a matter of only two more years.
Nothing at all is said about an expansion program for a period of ten years.


Mr. Applewhaite:: May I ask the hon. member a question?


Howard Charles Green: As a matter of fact even in 1949 and 1950 the company spent only approximately $8 million per year.

The Budget-Mr. McLure


Edward Turney Applewhaite: I should like to ask the
hon. member a question, because I know he has no desire to create a false impression. Was not the expansion program to 1952, to which the hon. member refers, the program referred to in the house in 1947 when the original $20 million was asked for?


Howard Charles Green: In any event, I do not believe the company will be able to spend $10 million a year for the next ten years. Much of the expansion has been caused by the installation of automatic telephones, and at least in the city of Vancouver that work will soon be completed.


Mr. Sinclair:: We hope so.


Howard Charles Green: Furthermore, because of the shortage of material I do not believe it will be possible to get sufficient equipment to carry on an expansion program amounting to anything like $10 million a year. I believe if given the increase for which it is asking, the company will have enough for the next twenty years.
This would mean that parliament would have no check on the company for a period of twenty years. And remember, Mr. Speaker, that the necessity for the company to come before parliament fairly frequently has a salutary effect. It influences policy; it makes the officials more careful of the way they treat the public. I believe they fear having to come to parliament more than they fear making an application before the board of transport commissioners. In my view it would be a tragedy if the company were given an increase so large that it would not have to come back to parliament for a period of twenty years.
That is the first point upon which the city is protesting. I have not the time tonight to develop the second point which, as I said, is the need for protection against unreasonable charges by the parent and affiliated companies of the British Columbia Telephone Company. I shall deal with that when the bill comes up again.
On motion of Mr. Green the debate was adjourned.


Mr. Speaker:: It being nine o'clock, the house will resume the business which was interrupted at six o'clock.



THE BUDGET


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration of the motion of Hon. Douglas Abbott (Minister of Finance) that Mr. Speaker do now leave the chair for the house to go into committee of
[Stage Direction]

ways and means, and the amendment thereto of Mr. Macdonnell (Greenwood), and the amendment to the amendment of Mr. Coldwell.
Mr.  W. Chester S. McLure@Queens: Mr. Speaker, when the house recessed at six o'clock I had been dealing with some matters which were of vital importance to my province of Prince Edward Island. I have only a few more subjects to discuss, and I shall be as brief as possible in doing so.
The first matter is one that I know will please the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) because, if carried into effect, it will show an annual saving for the government and the department presided over by the minister. This matter has to do with maritime freight rates. The estimates contain a large sum of money for maritime freight rates.
I wish these fellows would do their gossiping some place else, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Winfield Chester Scott McLure: I do not know whether they have the floor or whether I have. If they do not want to stay inside there is plenty of room outside. I was about to say that the Maritime Freight Rates Act has been misunderstood not only by members of parliament but by many people outside the house. It is looked upon as, and sometimes is stated as being, a subsidy to the maritime provinces. The Maritime Freight Rates Act of 1927 was brought into effect to equalize freight rates in the maritime provinces compared with those of the western provinces, and also through rates from the maritime provinces to the west. From 1912 to 1926 freight rates were increased on a basis of 92 per cent in the maritime provinces against 55 per cent over all in the western provinces.
When the Sir Andrew Rae Duncan commission made an examination of the claims of the maritime provinces one recommendation made for the benefit of the farmers was that a 20 per cent reduction be made in the freight rates they paid to bring in feed grain and other freight to the maritime provinces for the benefit of the agricultural producers. Therefore it was not a subsidy but an equalization, or an endeavour to equalize, by lowering freight rates in the maritimes so that they would be more equitable compared with those in other parts of Canada. This was of great benefit to the maritime agricultural producers. I do not know the exact amount of the benefit to Prince Edward Island, but I know it would be quite large because our farmers are large buyers of feed grain from western Canada.
My proposition is a repetition of what has already been said to the government. I

suggest that the government should build an elevator at Charlottetown so that freight might come by water from Churchill to Charlottetown, be stored in the elevator and then distributed to our farmers as required. It would mean a large saving annually. I would say without fear of contradiction that it would save the government at least a million dollars annually and give better satisfaction to the agricultural producers of Prince Edward Island. I am not going into the details of the elevator that we hope will be built as has been promised to us. The matter has been placed before the government on several occasions, and I know very well that it will be of great benefit to our farmers. It will be appreciated by them, and all the maritime provinces will support it in parliament.
Furthermore, members from the vicinity of Churchill will also give it their fullest support. If it is possible to do so at all, I would plead with the government to give the matter the fullest consideration at this time having regard to what it will do for the maritime provinces, particularly Prince Edward Island, if the elevator is built, and the great benefit it will be to our agricultural producers.


Mr. Ward:: Might I ask a question? Would the farmers of Prince Edward Island be able to use a full boatload of grain?


Winfield Chester Scott McLure: I did not quite hear the hon. member's question.


William John Ward: Would the farmers of Prince
Edward Island be able to use a full boatload of grain, three or four hundred thousand bushels?


Winfield Chester Scott McLure: Of course it would depend on the size of the boat. It might be a very small boat.


An hon. Member:: How about a whaleboat?


Stanley Howard Knowles: That is a whale of a good
answer.


Winfield Chester Scott McLure: Along with others you will
have an opportunity to discuss it later.


William John Ward: I might say that I am all in
sympathy with the suggestion of building an elevator at Charlottetown, but it would be necessary for the people of Prince Edward Island to be able to use a boatload, three or four hundred thousand bushels of grain.


James Sinclair: They would put potatoes
in it.


Winfield Chester Scott McLure: That would be a mere bagatelle with the livestock they have in the province of Prince Edward Island.
The Budget-Mr. McLure


William John Ward: I am very pleased to hear it.


Winfield Chester Scott McLure: I am sure of that. Another problem that has been laid at our door recently with which I want to deal has to do with transportation. I might say that transportation is vital to any island province such as ours, and the same will be said later on of the island province of Newfoundland. The problem with respect to Prince Edward Island to which I wish to refer is not of our own making. Canadian National Railways have condemned the Hillsboro bridge leading from Charlottetown to Southport, a distance of a mile. I am sure that when they condemned it they must have had something else in mind in order not to shut off all traffic from Charlottetown to the southern part of the island. True, we have another way of shipping our freight, a detour from Charlottetown to Murray Harbour which is a much longer route. Passengers coming from Murray Harbour to Charlottetown, a distance of fifty-six miles, can come as far as the bridge to Southport. Then they have to get out of the cars, walk the rest of the distance, hire a taxi or get a bus in order to travel to the city of Charlottetown.
I mention the matter at this time because I understand that Canadian National Railways are negotiating with the government of Prince Edward Island. It is a proper time for these negotiations to go on because when the trans-Canada highway is being built that will be the time to rebuild the Hillsboro bridge from Charlottetown to Southport. It was an old bridge that was finished in 1904. As I have said before in this housfe, the top part of the bridge was fifty years old before it came to us, having been brought from the Miramichi river. However, it stood the test up until the present time. Now we expect that the Canadian government through the Canadian National Railways will build a new bridge there. With the completion of the trans-Canada highway they must cross in the region of the Hillsboro bridge at some point to go to the terminal of the line and also to connect with the Wood Island-Caribou ferry. I will leave that matter with the government but I did wish to draw it to their attention at this time.
Having mentioned those problems I have one more, in connection with the fisheries and fishermen of Prince Edward Island. During a storm last autumn the breakwater at the best fishing port in Prince Edward Island, namely North Rustico, was badly damaged. That breakwater is the only protection we have for the processing plants, the fishing plants and the homes of the fishermen. Had the storm not subsided just when it did all those plants and homes, as

The Budget-Mr. McLure well as the two range light, would have been carried out to sea. Kind Providence was good to us and the storm subsided, but it left the breakwater in a very dilapidated condition. Some 150 feet were carried away, and the rest was left in bad shape. Now the government are looking it over to see what can be done, and I understand some work has commenced already. I would suggest that the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Mayhew) get in touch with the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Fournier) and have this harbour thoroughly inspected from the point of view of what will be of lasting benefit to the fishermen of this port. I need say no more on that matter, but I do hope consideration will be given the interests of those people. I understand from fishermen who have spent their lives there that the work being undertaken now will not be satisfactory. They are afraid the tides may be somewhat altered and that as a result the harbour will be filled with silt and sand. Even today it is hard enough for the boats to get to and from the fishing grounds. I hope both departments will take this matter into consideration.
In the few moments remaining at my disposal I want to mention one other matter, and I shall be very brief. I refer to the mail carriers in Charlottetown in my constituency and the mail couriers in Queens county. The new regulations brought in by the Postmaster General (Mr. Rinfret) have worked a great hardship upon these most faithful public servants. Under the new regulations, which were put into force with the idea of saving a few dollars, the position of the mail carrier has been affected for the worse. I had a letter from one of them today who says he is now compelled to serve 600 boxholders or residents of the city whereas previously he had to serve only 430. There is just one delivery a day, of course; but because of the large quantity of mail that must be handled these men have to go to work at 6 or 6.30 in the morning and are not through until 4.30 or 5 o'clock in the afternoon. In addition no recognition is given for the number of years they have served. Many of these men are veterans of the first war. The man from whom I had the letter today says that with the extra ground he has to cover and the extra mail he has to carry he finds it very difficult to continue his work from day to day.
As far as the rural mail couriers are concerned, the government has adopted a method under which they try to force down all tenders to the lowest possible figure. They call for tenders. After they are received those tendering get back a letter saying, "We find your tender rather high. Can you reduce

it?" I always understood that when tenders were called and opened, if the sureties were satisfactory the lowest tender would be accepted. Today very few mail couriers in my province, and particularly in my constituency, are even making a living wage when you consider their taxes and expenses. These men are becoming dissatisfied, and I do not wonder at it. At the same time I must say that our city mail carriers and country mail couriers are the finest class of individuals in Canada. If the department were so eager to make a saving I think they might have started with the top salaries instead of with the lower ones. I am sure that if even a small cut had been made at the top it never would have got down to the low brackets, because the objective would have been gained long before that. But it is always the same old story; when any economies are to be effected the department begins with the lower paid individuals. This does not make for good citizenship, because it breeds discontent among those people. I hope the Postmaster General will not carry this too far, because even now you hear things said that could not be placed on record because they are hardly parliamentary.
I see my time has almost expired, and in closing I want to make just one statement. In view of the facts I have brought forward this evening I believe it is my duty to insist and demand that our province be treated fairly and squarely. I know the people of Prince Edward Island would not desire me to beg, or to ask for any favours or handouts from the government. They do expect me, however, as the elected representative of both Liberals and Progressive Conservatives in my riding, to demand just and fair treatment, and the implementation of all the promises that have been made to my province. So I will demand that the federal government fulfil its pledges, political and otherwise, as well as the terms of confederation, as long as I am a representative from Prince Edward Island.


Harry Peter Cavers: Mr. Speaker,
in rising to take part in this budget debate, my first words must be those of commendation and appreciation of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott), who for the past three or four years has carried on faithfully and earnestly in his duties as supervisor of the financial structure of this country. I would be remiss if I did not mention his parliamentary assistant, who has given him a great deal of assistance in the matters which he has carried out.
The budget which was brought down by the minister a few days ago I find has been accepted by the people of Canada. The

people of Canada are aware of the serious international situation with which we are confronted. They are ready to submit themselves to the additional taxes which must be levied upon them in order that the preparedness program may be met by the federal treasury. Even though we have before us at all times the serious international question, I believe that we should not lose sight of certain domestic problems which we have in this country. It will be my purpose tonight to point out to this house, and to other legislative bodies, a serious domestic problem which is the concern of the constituency I represent. I refer to the great menace of erosion.
In speaking on this particular subject, I ought to point out the geographical location of the constituency of Lincoln. We are the greater part of the Niagara peninsula, bounded on the north by lake Ontario, on the east by the Niagara river, on the west by the county of Wentworth, and on the south by the great industrial county of Welland and the Niagara escarpment. The county of Lincoln is a rich alluvial plain which slopes from the Niagara escarpment towards lake Ontario. In addition to the great industrial city of St. Catharines, we have the fertile lands which abound in this area. The farmers of our area cultivate the best peaches, pears, cherries, grapes and vegetables grown in the Dominion of Canada. However, they depend to a large extent on the products of the soil for their livelihood. It is an intensively cultivated area, and constitutes the major fruit and vegetable growing area of the province of Ontario.
Lake Ontario is the smallest of the great lakes, having a total water surface of about 7,500 square miles. Its length, from Burlington to the easterly end near Kingston, is 193 miles, and it has a breadth of 53 miles. The easterly portion of the south shore of the lake is exposed to northerly winds. A prominent cliff occurs along much of the shore, having a height of some 20 to 30 feet which gradually decreases to the west and gives way to a sandy shore. The water level of lake Ontario has been increased to some extent in the last ten years, owing partly to the fact that two diversions have occurred in lake Superior for the purpose of developing power. One of the diversions is referred to as the Ogoki diversion, and the other is the Long Lac diversion.
At these two points additions of water are permitted to go into the great lakes system, which has the effect of raising the water level of lake Ontario about 4 inches. I am told that the full effect of these diversions will not be felt on the great lakes until
The Budget-Mr. Cavers about 1956. It is true that some water is abstracted from the great lakes system at two points, Chicago and Tonawanda. The Chicago drainage canal, built about 15 or 20 years ago, takes some water from the great lakes system and lowers the level of lake Ontario by about 1-8 inches. The New York state canal, which diverts about 100 cubic feet per second, takes water from the Niagara river at Tonawanda but returns it again by way of the Genesee river near Buffalo, so the difference in the supply of water at this point is relatively negligible. However, we have placed a gut dam in the St. Lawrence at the head of the Galop rapids and the flow of water from lake Ontario has been retarded to some extent which has the effect of raising the water level by another 5 inches.
These mechanical changes are not the only factors which raise the water level, as additional height is given by reason of evaporation and precipitation. This gradual rise in the water level has a tendency to bring about a resultant wave of destruction which has caused the banks of lake Ontario to recede to a considerable extent. I am most concerned with that part along the southern shore of lake Ontario. In 1949 a survey was conducted by Dr. G. B. Langford, professor of mining and geology at the university of Toronto. This work was undertaken with the approval of the department of planning and development of the province of Ontario. Dr. Langford has published his report, which I have before me, dated May 1, 1949. It sets forth the rate of recession along the shore line of the southern part of lake Ontario. I refer to Dr. Langford's report and deal specifically with the townships, proceeding easterly from the Niagara river inward towards the city of Hamilton.
In Niagara township, the shore line from November, 1935, to December, 1949, has receded at the rate of 4 [DOT] 7 feet per year. In the township of Grantham in the period between September, 1936, and November, 1946, the shore line has receded 5-9 feet per year. For the township of Louth, the recession has been to a lesser degree. From December, 1922, to April, 1942, it was at the rate of 3-5 feet per year. By a reference to this report it will be noted that the easterly twelve miles of the shore line has been receding at the rate of 5 feet per year. There has been a loss along the other end of the peninsula of about 6 feet per year, or a loss of 3 acres of land per year over a period of five years. You may say that 13 acres is a relatively small thing, but in the 160 years during which farm operations have been carried on in the Niagara peninsula, there has been a loss of

The Budget-Mr. Cavers 2,000 acres of land, 13| square miles of valuable, arable land. There are farmers who state that they have lost one or more rows of fruit trees in a period of five years. As the population of our country grows there will be an increased demand for the type of farm produce that can be grown only in our particular area. It is imperative that we should protect every square foot of it. It is a limited national asset which, once gone, cannot be replaced.
There are those who, by individual effort, have endeavoured to solve this problem. Some individuals along the shore line have endeavoured to erect breakwaters and have deposited rock in order to erect groins jutting out into the lake. Their efforts have been rewarded to some extent. Where this work has been done, you will see small promontories extending out into lake Ontario. Then there were others who banded themselves together in an association known as the Ontario Shore and Beach Preservation Association.
The object of this association was to urge upon governments the formulation of a plan to combat the serious menace of erosion in the province of Ontario. The association did not pick out any particular area. Being a province-wide association, it was necessary that they should commence and continue their work on a province-wide basis. But their work was not in vain, for they were successful in obtaining the report of a special select committee on conservation in the province of Ontario; they also have for their efforts the report which I have read, undertaken by Dr. Langford. The opinion seems to have become more prevalent of late that this matter is not one for the individual but rather is one of public responsibility. A project of this kind to save the shore line and particularly valuable lands in this area should not be undertaken by the individual but is a matter for collective work. It is a public responsibility. Dr. Langford in his report has recommended that there should be placed out in the lake, groins which would tend to collect sand deposits about them and produce a wider sandy beach.
I think that the time is opportune for work of this kind to be undertaken in our particular area. The Niagara power diversion plan is about to be commenced by the Ontario Hydro Electric Power Commission. In commencing this work they will endeavour, within the next few months, to develop an open cut extending from Chippawa north through the Niagara escarpment and opening again on the Niagara river at Queenston. This would seem to be a most advantageous time 1o commence work of this kind.

I would suggest-and such suggestions have been made to the Ontario Hydro Electric Power Commission that they should provide the rock for an undertaking of this kind. There is a local rumour to the effect that the rock may be dumped on valuable lands in the area. I hope that this rumour is not well-founded, because such action would ruin many of the valuable lands in that particular area. The Ontario Hydro Electric Power Commission have done something to provide additional beauty for their power house at Queenston, in the establishment of the finest floral clock on the North American continent. I would hope that they would not with the one hand build up an edifice of this kind and with the other hand wipe out that advantage by destroying the landscape of the lands in our particular area. Furthermore, they would save investment in lands required for this purpose. In the course of my remarks I shall not attempt to assess the cost of such an undertaking. It would be ridiculous for me to attempt to assess costs of this kind because in this day of fluctuating prices and increasing costs any such attempt would have but little meaning. I propose, however-and such proposals would be made-that the Hydro Electric Power Commission of Ontario might donate the rock. I urge upon the Minister of Resources and Development (Mr. Winters) that the federal government should assume 25 per cent of the cost of this undertaking. I also urge upon the provincial government of Ontario that 25 per cent of the cost should be assumed by them. The adjoining townships or municipalities have already intimated that they are prepared to contribute 25 per cent of the cost; and the owners of adjoining lands on the lakefront have already undertaken and agreed to supply the remaining 25 per cent of the cost of this work.
Some years ago the government of the United States recognized the problem of erosion. By public discussion results have been obtained in the formulation of policies which will deal with this problem. European countries on the north Atlantic and on the North sea, for some years "have been fighting the eroding seas". I think that we in Canada must accept this public responsibility, and that this is a most opportune time to make a beginning on the south shore of lake Ontario.


Frank Exton Lennard: Mr. Speaker, as one who has not much time for the repetition which takes place in this house, I find myself at a loss for words this evening. I might say that the hon. member for Lincoln (Mr. Cavers) has practically taken the words out of my mouth.


Mr, Gibson:: Then say, "me too."


Frank Exton Lennard: This is not a new subject with me. I have brought it to the attention of this house on one or two occasions previously. I must compliment the hon. member for Lincoln for making a fine presentation of this problem which is of great concern to the counties of Lincoln and Wentworth and to other adjoining properties. At a meeting of the Lake Shore Erosion Conference, held in Toronto in March, 1948, the following resolution was passed:
Resolved that this organization ask the provincial and federal governments to instruct their engineeers to make a survey of the erosion on the great lakes and report with a recommendation for a remedy; and in this report be included a report on the effects of the Ogoki and Albany river diversions on the level of the great lakes.
While this resolution went forward at that time to the Ontario government and to the federal government, the latter have disclaimed any knowledge of ever having received it. As has just been said by the hon. member for Lincoln, however, the Ontario government appointed Mr. G. B. Langford, and he made a survey and a report several years ago. I have always claimed that the federal government should assume a portion of the responsibility because it was only a few years ago that a former premier of Ontario approached the federal government and persuaded them to legalize the diversion of waters from the Ogoki and Albany rivers into the great lakes system which means, as the hon. member for Lincoln has just said, that there is flowing into the great lakes system some 1,700 cubic feet per second of additional water that formerly flowed towards James bay and the Arctic circle. It is argued by many engineers that this diversion had a great deal to do with the higher levels that we have experienced during the past several years.
In the immediate vicinity of Hamilton beach and Van Wagner's beach just a few months ago they experienced a great deal of trouble, and many houses have been practically washed away. The common answer to that is: Well, they should not have built so near the shore line. In many instances the older houses that were built years ago were built a considerable distance from the shore line at that time, but because of this constant erosion, in some instances up to six and often nearly seven feet a year over the past fifteen or twenty years, the shore line has receded upwards of 200 feet. A serious condition is facing the people in the Niagara peninsula.
As I said on one other occasion, if the two governments, the federal and provincial, do not stop passing the buck, and get together
The Budget-Mr. Lennard and do something on this matter, the great Niagara fruit belt will pass out of existence in a few years.
In that connection the United States policy was slow to develop in the beginning, but it is quite definite today. In 1929 the problem was formally recognized by the establishment in the corps of engineers of a departmental board on sand movement and beach erosion. This was followed the next year by the creation of the United States beach erosion board of four officers of the corps of engineers and three civilians. The board was originally authorized only to make studies and investigations of erosion problems in co-operation with state governments, and the expenses of such investigations were to be shared by the two governments.
The duties of the board were expanded, however, in 1945 and it was authorized to act independently of state governments in studying shore erosion; while at the same time being able to act with them if asked to do so. The state governments were no longer asked to share the cost of such investigations. As an evidence of a growing sense of federal responsibility in this matter, the board was asked to make specific recommendations on what share of the expenses of recommended shore protective works should be borne by the federal government.
The following year, the central government's willingness to share in the cost of protective works was stated as follows:
It is hereby declared to be the policy of the United States to assist in the construction, but not the maintenance, of works for the improvement and protection-of the shores-that are owned by states, municipalities or other political subdivisions.
The existing policy in the United States can be summed up as follows:
1.	The federal government is prepared to make studies of shore erosion and recommendations for protective works on any shore property, whether publicly or privately owned. This may be done in co-operation with state governments or independently of them.
2.	The federal government is also prepared to assist in the construction of protective works for property that is publicly owned, up to one-third of the total cost of such works.
3.	The federal government will not assist in the maintenance or repairs to existing structures, except in the case of protection of important highways.
It is quite evident that the United States government recognizes the seriousness of the erosion that is taking place on our great lakes in connection with property over which they have control. The federal government should seriously consider taking such

The Budget-Mr. A. C. Murray measures as would set up machinery to do likewise in Canada. The suggestions made by the hon. member for Lincoln (Mr. Cavers) that the municipalities, provincial and federal governments, share the cost is certainly commendable.
Just a word on the budget; it has been pretty well covered, and as I said earlier this evening, and as I have said on other occasions, I am not one who believes in repetition in this house-we hear so much of it and it is so tiring. What I have to say, while it will be repeating what other members have said, will yet take only a few minutes, and therefore I feel it will not cause too much hardship on some of the hon. members who are so patient and who sit here for many hours listening to this tiresome repetition.
X cannot understand why electric stoves, washing machines and refrigerators were picked out as luxury items, and liquor was considered a necessity. I am absolutely opposed to the increase in the sales tax. I am opposed to a sales tax of any kind, and always have been. I say that, knowing who was responsible for introducing the sales tax in this country. I have always been opposed to it. It is an unjust tax. I do not believe in hidden taxes-goodness knows we have too many of them. If the people of this country knew just how heavy the hidden taxes were we would have a revolution.
To begin with, any sales tax should be visible, not hidden. If the minister hopes, as he says he does, to keep down inflation by discouraging spending, then, by having a hidden sales tax he will not achieve that result; but if the sales tax were visible people would be discouraged from buying many articles that they buy today. I know that is a fact today because I have been in other countries where they have a visible sales tax. In fact I have been in some provinces of this country where they had a visible tax, and it rather irritated me a bit, and when I was about to buy an article with an additional tax on it I said: "You can keep it"; and I went off without it.
In closing I may say that this sales tax, with its increase, is in my opinion one of the most stupid taxes to have inflicted on the country at this time. If a sales tax is to be applied it certainly should not be applied to what I consider necessities, absolute necessities to people in the lower income brackets, people with large families who have to pay so much for the clothing they require. They should not have to pay these multiple taxes to secure these necessities.


Mr. A. C. Murray (Oxford):: Mr. Speaker, coming as I do from the great dairying county

of Oxford, I think I should use first of all, in appreciation of the warmth of the applause tonight, the reply that the Oxford county cow is reported to have given a kind lady on a cold frosty morning, namely, thank you for the warm hand.
I should like to say also that as the member for Oxford I would want to join in the sentiments that were conveyed here this week by the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Maybank), namely, words of appreciation to the Speaker of this house, who comes from the city of Brantford, a city close to my home, and say also to you, sir, it is my hope that you may long be spared to add lustre and distinction to this assembly and to confer upon this chamber the benefit of your wisdom and of your talents.
Likewise I should like to join tonight in this, my maiden speech before the house, in a word of appreciation to the one who today leads this nation of Canada, the revered and respected leader of the government, the Prime Minister of Canada, the Right Hon. Louis St. Laurent, and to say to him that, just as mothers of men rejoice in the achievements and accomplishments of honoured sons, and not less for those achievements than for those qualities which endear them to their fellow men, so too, in turn tonight, do we pay tribute to the Prime Minister of Canada-not less for his achievements, not less for all his accomplishments in the legal world than for those innate qualities of kindness and of friendship and of integrity and of character which have endeared him to all the people of this nation.
I am reminded, sir, that it is neither wealth nor riches that brings greatness to an institution, yea even to the House of Commons, but it is the men and the women who travel in its service. And so tonight I am proud to be associated with hon. members of the house who are giving of their time and of their talents for the betterment of a better Canada, and for the betterment of our citizens.
It seems to me, sir, that if a man tries to do the job he has set out to do, and does that job faithfully, efficiently and well, even though he be a humble member of the house, a backbencher, he is serving Canada just as efficiently and just as well as those in higher positions. I can realize that that may find reluctant resistance in the minds of some at this time. I hasten to say I am not thinking of the grand eloquence surrounding us, or of the magnitude of the task. I am thinking of the soul and life of Canada. And so again I say I am proud to be associated with the membership of the house

who are giving of their time, of their ability and talents for the betterment of the citizens of today.
After all, the quality of a nation is nothing more and nothing less than the quality, integrity and character of its people, and of those who manage its affairs. I think it was Schiller who once remarked that an artist is judged, not by what he places on canvas but rather by what he leaves out. I hasten to say tonight that I make no claim to artistic genius or eloquence. It is because of the repetition that has already taken place in this debate that I must, of necessity, eliminate a great deal that already has been said.
However if I should be halting in my words or in expressing my thoughts I know hon. members will not judge me insincere when I join my voice with the many who have already spoken in commendation of the Minister of Finance for the straightforward and businesslike manner in which he has approached this year's budget. The very reason for having a part in Canada's parliament is to make some contribution to the preservation of Canada's democracy. It seems to me that the very foundation of democracy lies in voluntary co-operation and the preservation of personal liberty.
These are days, we recognize, when men are assailing the ideals of democracy, not only in those countries which are distinctly antidemocratic; in our own country there are some who are saying that democracy has failed, and that we should replace it with some other type of autocratic control. My own ambition for the rest of my life, and for whatever influence I may have in the public affairs of this nation, is to make some contribution to the preservation of Canadian democracy.
I do not say that tonight in any vainglorious spirit, nor for the purpose of making myself feel superior; but because of our natural surroundings, because of the great natural resources of our dominion, and because of the splendid parent stock that is to be found in the old races of Canada. In that heritage I feel rests the inspiration which makes possible an even higher and finer contribution to Canada today than we have hitherto dreamed of.
I realize, Mr. Speaker, that in this debate one is privileged to tell something of his constituency. With the poet tonight I can easily say that-
The sea hath its pearls The sky hath its stars But my heart hath love-
2G, 1951
The Budget-Mr. A. C. Murray -a love for Oxford, and its people. Born within its boundaries, as I was, and having lived there all my life, I have come to know and to appreciate the wondrous heritage of the hospitality of its people.
While I have listened to many members within this chamber tell of the greatness of their constituencies, one's heart naturally yearns for his native riding. With due apologies to Robert Burns tonight I fain would say:
The bridegroom may forget his bride,
Who married was but yesterday;
The mother may forget her child.
Who sleeps so sweetly on her knee;
The king he may forget his crown That on his head the hour hath lain
But I will not thou-
Oxford-
-forget
For a' that thou hast been to me.
So I say to you tonight that while others have mentioned the greatness of their constituencies, this evening I choose to kodak, to develop and to print one of the finest counties in the Dominion of Canada, the finest flower in the garden, the first prize chrysanthemum, the county of Oxford in the province of Ontario.
Last week while I was home I heard my mother retell the story of how my grandparents came from the land of Scotland, taking as many weeks to cross the Atlantic as it now takes days. I heard her tell of how, around my home city of Woodstock, which in those days was bush and forest, with only a trail through the woods, by industry and hard work the trees were felled, the log cabins built and the soil tilled.
Oxford is famous for its Scotch ancestors, and has given many men to all branches of life-men who have given everything to take their places in the professional, the commercial and the industrial life of the nation. Born in humble homes, reared midst hardships and want, at times, unconsciously they were trained by a stern but kind Providence in those habits of economy, of temperance and of hard work which have later brought them to the fore in all departments of life.
I think it was Emerson who wrote that the true test of civilization is not the size of the cities or the population, but rather the kind of men a country turns out. And tonight, in passing, I shall mention only Ralph Connor, known to many because of his writings, and particularly his book "The Man from Glengarry." I would mention likewise the late Dr. George Leslie McKay, the well known missionary to Formosa.
I would pause briefly to pay tribute to the township of my birth, the township of Zorra

The Budget-Mr. A. C. Murray in the county of Oxford. I cannot think of any finer honour Oxford county cherishes today than this, that it is the birthplace of an honoured colleague in the House of Commons, the genial member for Hamilton East (Mr. Ross), and likewise the birthplace of my honoured colleague and namesake, the hon. member for Cariboo (Mr. Murray), whose mother, whose brothers and whose sisters are deeply respected citizens of my native Oxford.
Likewise as a native of Zorra I am sure my honoured colleague would join me tonight in the lines reported as having been said by a lady at the time of the Fenian raid in Zorra:	They may take Montreal, they may
take Ottawa, they may take Toronto, but they will not take Zorra. So I say to you this evening that Oxford is noted for its prosperity, for its quiet beauty of rolling hills, of well cultivated fields, its gentle streams and its friendly people. Nestled within its boundaries are the towns of Inger-soll, Tillsonburg, Tavistock, and my own home city of Woodstock, ofttimes called the city beautiful or the industrial city, indicative of the long rows of maple trees which adorn our city streets and the initiative and enterprise of our people. Situated as it is in a very prosperous section of Ontario, it has shared in the general prosperity which our nation has enjoyed, and my fondest wish tonight as I take my stand on behalf of my people is that it may continue to share for many years to come that prosperity which has enriched it in days gone by.
Taking my stand tonight on behalf of the constituency of Oxford, I am reminded that it has been represented by a number of illustrious men including the late Sir Francis Hincks, the Hon. George Brown, Thomas Oliver, the late Hon. James Sutherland, Dr. Sinclair, A. S. Rennie, and in more recent times, the Hon. D. M. Sutherland, formerly minister of national defence, my predecessor, Mr. K. R. Daniel, and others, who in the past have given to this assembly the benefit of their wisdom and their talents, and have truly lent lustre and distinction to it. Tonight as I think of that long line of illustrious men, and while I realize that imperfections no doubt may follow tonight, I want to present some thoughts particularly as they pertain to this year's budget.
I want to say first of all that one could be alarmed at the amount that is to be appropriated for the defence of our nation. I think, however, that we all must realize the situation in the small atomic world wherein we live, but I would not want to be an alarmist. I would not want to wave any flags of undue patriotism or to be accused of speaking directly against the peoples of 
any nation because I do not think that the mass of the people of Russia want war any more than you or I or other nations throughout the world want war today. I think we all want peace but because of these fourteen or fifteen men in the Kremlin, because of their record of leadership, a leadership that cannot be trusted, there is no other course to follow than that which has been followed by the government of this nation, namely, to build its defences strong.
Therefore I say, and I am weighing every word as I say it this evening, that as of now the people of Canada must be prepared to build our defences strong. Without indicating that there will be any war, any atom bombs used, any germicidal warfare, I think all hon. members must realize that we must put first things first, and by so doing I for one hope that the jet planes that are being built and the bombers that are being constructed will be the means not of winning world war III but rather of preventing it. Therefore I say tonight that while I realize it is not a very popular thing for the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) to come to the people of the country and say that large sums of money have to be appropriated for the defence of our land, on the other hand there is no other method to follow than that which has been followed, and which no doubt will be followed increasingly over the next number of months, the method of solidarity building for that day which we hope will come when the peoples of all nations will come to learn to live together in peace and harmony, and when those who have perverted ideas in places of leadership will finally be dethroned.
Turning from international relations to domestic affairs I want to bespeak at this time the appreciation of the profession to which I belong, the pharmaceutical associations throughout Canada, and the appreciation of all citizens, to the Minister of Finance for the exemption under the budget of special drugs the cost of which is deductible for income tax purposes. I should like to say to the Minister of Finance that while we appreciate that he has recognized this principle of deduction we hope in turn that he may see his way clear to add to it to include all medical prescriptions so that it may be of equal benefit to the citizens of the nation.
I should like to intimate that Oxford is also concerned about the transition that is taking place today in the agricultural life of the nation. I hope that even a preponderance of government members does not preclude my emphasizing within this chamber that agriculture should receive a most considered position. It is needless to repeat that a prosperous

agriculture means a prosperous Canada, that farm income is the keynote to national prosperity. I can personally vouch for the fact that when the farmer is prosperous, cash registers ring more merrily in the cities. I think we can pretty well all agree that agriculture and industry will rise and fall together. But what we must not forget is the importance of agriculture in the economy of the nation. Generally speaking, our farming people are ready to meet the contingencies of climate such as frost and snow, but I do not think they want their chins punched from all directions. Nor do they want a lot of government controls which would be the natural thing under subsidized farming.
Indeed I should like to commend the government for the position it has taken on controls. Controls do not cure inflation. They but contain it. At this time I want to commend the government for not putting the business economy of our nation in a strait-jacket where it would be subject to regimentation, to export and import controls, black markets and all the rest that goes with it. I should say to you, sir, that I am in the retail drug profession, and I went through the period when we had controls. I make bold to say that during the control period we were out of selling condition. You will remember we went quickly from an ordinary, very healthy, sane buyers' market into a sellers' market. It was not a question of getting customers or selling to them. The whole normal process of business was completely reversed. Let me give you a personal illustration. The retailer was not seeking customers. Rather customers were seeking the retailer. Similarly the wholesaler was not seeking the retailer. The retailer was seeking the wholesaler. As a personal illustration, I can say that when a traveller came into the store during the period of controls you went all out with him endeavouring to seek from him the goods that you so dearly desired. You would go up to him and say, "Here, sir, have a chair; have a cigar, have a stenographer"; anything to get out of him the goods you so badly needed. During that period we also had the rationing of goods. You could have some; I could not. That affected goods such as sugar, meat, rubber, gasoline, chocolates, and all the rest of it. I hope those days will not return.
The point I am endeavouring to make is that during that control period we were out of selling condition. Goods were hard to get; sales were easy to make, and as a result we became soft and inefficient. So let us be guided by that period. Let us keep those virtues of hard work, industry, enterprise, patience and persistence as the hall-marks of our national efforts in the days ahead.
20, 1951
The Budget-Mr. A. C. Murray Let us hearken to the words of the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) who guided the productive energies of this country during the last war, and who has said that hard work, production and savings will bring us through this period of difficulty just as it did before. Let us pay heed to the words of the Minister of Finance, that it is an inexorable law of life that everything we get must be paid for. Freedom is not free; it was bought at a price, and we are going to have to pay the price to retain it.
I confess, sir, that when I hear the many requests for assistance that come from certain quarters of this chamber I become a little disturbed. It is not that we are not all anxious for the welfare of our fellow men, for old age pensions, health insurance and so on; but I become concerned that at the same time we do not kill by taxation the enterprise, initiative and industry which have made our nation what it is. I may be a little old fashioned in my thinking, but I still feel that those attributes of hard work, industry, production and saving are the beacon light in the destiny of Canada. Oft-times I feel that we are suffering from a disease in this land. It is not cancer; it is not polio; it is not heart disease. It is more insidious than any or all these. It so weakened one country that she was not able to defend herself in time of war. It is not the shortage of dollars; it is the shortage of work. Some people have fallen for the old idea, or the new idea, of shorter hours and more pay, when it seems to me that what is needed in Canada today is more work and more production to trade with the peoples of other countries. This week the house witnessed the spectacle of an hon. member rising in his place and piling high upon his desk volumes pertaining to the exuberant and vociferous demands made upon this government, demands that have to be paid for by the hard work and taxes of our people. Tonight I say to that hon. member that he omitted one book on that occasion, the most important book of all. I have that book with me; I have brought it from the hotel where I stay, where it was placed by the Gideons. I do not want to alarm hon. members but I do want to read the 19th verse of the 3rd chapter of Genesis, wherein it says:
In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground.
That is God's law; it is nature's law; it is true, and immutable. How can anyone think he may change it? Unfortunately, however, there appear to be people going through our land, agitators, saying to young men and men who are not so young, "Do as little as you can; get as much as you can." I point out

The Budget-Mr. A. C. Murray that this is contrary to those laws of virtue and industry that we learned at our mother's knee. We cannot hope to maintain the vigour and wealth of our country with any theory such as that. So to a certain section of this house I say that while some may sing siren songs of the pleasures of delight when we all receive more by doing less, tonight I bring a word that speaks for itself in this fashion. I am the foundation of all prosperity. I am the fount from which all blessings flow. I am the salt that gives life its savour. I am the friend of every young man and every young woman, and when he or she puts his or her hand in mine and keeps it there for a lifetime I will do more for that person than the richest parent. I am the sole support of the poor, and the rich who think they can get along without me lead ineffectual lives and fill premature graves. I have made this Dominion of Canada. I have laid its railways; I have paved its highways; I have set a standard of living unequalled in the world. What am I? I am work, the answer to this problem of inflation, the answer to the building up of the defences of this nation against any potential enemy of the future, the answer to the recreating of wealth destroyed by war, the answer to the building of a greater and finer Canada than hitherto we have known.
So I say to this chamber tonight, let us set the example in our own lives. Let us teach this to our children. If we pray, as I hope we all do, let us pray that management and labour may fuse their forces into a productive whole that will continue to build this great land with the same zeal and energy that the men and women of Canada have displayed in defending it. In this great land there is no other way for us to follow than to be constantly, continually, habitually and eternally optimistic regarding it. I recognize that there are some in the country who are apostles of doom and disaster, who can see nothing but trials and tribulations before us. Fortunately there are not many of that kind. We on the government side say the history of Canada has been made up of meeting challenges and difficulties, so the future is not going to frighten us provided we bring to it the industry, brains and initiative we all possess but may not be using to the full.
There is one thing more which was emphasized this afternoon by the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker). The crying need of the world today is unity versus antagonism, co-operation against rivalry. Above all we need unity in spirit among the nations of the world. Today the privilege of being a Canadian carries with it a great

responsibility. A few years ago we were Upper and Lower Canada. Today we are one. Having done so much, is it not our duty to do more? The unifying power of our race is not exhausted. None can deny that in Canada we have enjoyed a period of prosperity unequalled in our history. As we face the future let us not forget that Canada's economic policy must march in step with the policies of those who are or may become our friends. It must be in the interests of Canada, but of a Canada which could not tonight, even if it wanted, remain isolated or insulated from the community of nations that today inhabit this small atomic world.
We must learn, Mr. Speaker, to get along together; to live together and to trade together. So, as I bring these remarks to a close, I wish to commend the government, our leader and our ministers, for the action that has been taken in building up the defence of our nation; in making our country strong; and likewise to emphasize that while we have these defence obligations we have other obligations to build somehow, some way, the attributes of decency among all peoples throughout the world and to work for that day when peace shall come and wars shall be no more.
May dishonour blast our names
And quench our household fires,
If we or ours fail this land.
This dear land of our sires.


Mr. Hector Dupuis (St. Mary):: Mr. Speaker, I too represent the best constituency in Canada. I want every member of this house to know that I shall not talk very long in this debate, but I thoroughly believe the arguments I shall presently advance. My remarks in English will be brief, because they are a summary of the more elaborate ones that I shall make in my own language. I request the indulgence of my Englishspeaking colleagues if some of my expressions sound queer and rather illiterate. It is due to my limited knowledge of your language. However, I shall do my best to be as clear as possible so that there can be no misinterpretation of my meaning.
During this speech I shall make some recommendations, and of course as I said my remarks will be longer in French than they will be in English. The main reason for my participation in this debate is to bring to the attention of the government the opinion of the average citizen, and his reaction to the proposed budget for the coming fiscal year, as well as the increased taxes it imposes. When I speak of the "average citizen" I mean the small merchant, the medium and low wage earner, who compose

the majority of those in the urban constituencies. In a democracy a good government, such as this one, must take note of public recommendations or expectations. The same principle applies to every member in a party. We all agree, Mr. Speaker, that the chief worry of the classes I mentioned a moment ago is the constant increase in the cost of living and the overcoming of this problem. Some serious minded people suggest that price control be imposed, while others are of the opposite opinion. I have already expressed my views on this subject. In my opinion price control cannot be exercised unless wage controls are also established. Wages cannot be frozen at their present rate, especially in the case of unskilled labour and the so-called white-collar workers, because in the majority of cases these workers do not earn enough to make both ends meet.
I am not the only member who is of this opinion. I listened with a great deal of interest to a speech made by the member for Cochrane (Mr. Bradette) the other day, in which he said the following, as it appears on page 1751 of Hansard of April 9, 1951:
You cannot have price control unless you also have wage control.
On the same page the hon. member says:
Does anyone in the house want control now all across the board on all commodities, control that will affect our exports and imports? Certainly people are not ready for such a situation. I noticed that the amendment moved this afternoon by the leader of the opposition is well guarded in its language. You heard it, and I will read it again. It is as follows:
"This house is of the opinion that in view of the announcement made on Wednesday last of the greatest monthly increase in Canadian cost of living during the month of February to the disastrously high level of 179-7, immediate consideration should be given to the adoption of appropriate measures to hold down the cost of living and halt inflation."
The member for Cochrane added: "There is no mention of control there." The government, as well as everyone else, is well aware of the grave situation which is facing a large number of our citizens. I feel confident that every effort will be made to alleviate, as much as it is within the power of the government to do so, the privation encountered by so many people today. However, according to the declarations of the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) and other members of his cabinet, price controls are not advisable, for the very good reasons put forth in recent speeches.
I have heard a lot of criticism from members of the opposition. I have read thoroughly the address delivered by the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Macdonnell), and scrupulously analysed the amendment he
The Budget-Mr. Dupuis has proposed. This amendment reads as follows, at page 2053 of Hansard of April 16, 1951:
That all the words after "that" to the end of the question be deleted and the following substituted therefor:
"the proposals of the Minister of Finance are unsatisfactory because they will inevitably increase the cost of living for all and especially for those least able to bear it.
This house condemns in particular, as inflationary, the increase by 25 per cent of the general sales tax and is of the opinion that the increase is unnecessary and unwise.
This house further condemns the heavy increase in excise taxes on certain essential commodities and is of the opinion that much of the government's proposed huge increase in taxation is due to its own extravagance.
This house regrets the failure of the government to take effective steps to deal with profiteering."
According to the hon. member, who is known as the main financial critic of the official opposition, all the taxes imposed to meet the estimates of the coming fiscal year are too high and improperly applied. Has the hon. member, for whom I have the greatest respect, made any suggestions as to the sort of taxes that should be imposed, or on what category or group of people in particular the burden should be placed? The opposition is reproaching the government for the immensity of the taxes the Canadian people will have to pay. What would these taxes have amounted to if the government had listened to the screams of anguish of the opposition and adopted their suggestion for the immediate regimentation of the reserve forces? Such a measure would have considerably increased our war expenditures.
We are facing a crucial situation and nothing must be spared which will assure the survival of democracy. But we must pay for this, and taxes must be levied. We may consider ourselves fortunate that we have now at the head of the country leaders who have not been panic-stricken and who have acted wisely in adopting measures required by the times. Should they be forced to ask for more sacrifices from the people, I am sure that this government will take this responsibility at the proper time.
The hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Macdonnell), in his remarks, made this statement as reported at page 2053 of Hansard:
I am not asking for a miracle. On the other hand negation is not a policy.
In this statement I agree with the hon. member. I would not dare to criticize the policy of anybody unless I had some better proposal to make. The remarks made by the leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew) himself are nearly all negative, as they contain only reproaches of the government or condemnation of their actions. The speeches of

The Budget-Mr. Dupuis members of the opposition in general contain no constructive recommendations.
Some say that it is the business of the government to settle the administrative problems of the country. I say that it is the business of every member of this house to make any suggestions that he may think are for the good of the country. As I said a little while ago, I am going to make some recommendations. It may be too late for them to be applied to the budget that is now receiving our attention; but at the same time I think there is ground for study of certain suggestions I will make. For instance, has the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. McCann) ever considered the advisability of imposing income taxes on profits made on some transactions, such as on the sales of businesses? There is now such a tax in the United States and it has given good results. I am thinking of the case of taverns changing hands two or three times during the same year, each owner realizing profits ranging from $20,000 to $50,000. Why not tax such income? It is a profit. It is an income, after all. Why not tax it at the source as is done in the case of all salaried 'people? The same remark would apply to stock market speculators. They could also be taxed at the source, by taxing them indirectly, through the services of the broker, on the profits they realize on certain transactions. Although as I said a little while ago it may be too late for these measures to be put into force for the coming fiscal year, I sincerely believe that if such measures were put into force the government would probably be in a position, if not to lower the present rate of income tax at least to keep it at the present rate and not increase it.
One must bear in mind the fact that the employee cannot escape the payment of his income tax, which is deducted at the source and reported to the authorities by the employers. It has not been done only under this government. It has been suggested, I suppose, by great economists. I know it is a good way of collecting income tax. I am not in favour of the worker escaping payment of income tax. I am not suggesting that at all. I am just pointing out the fact that there are, in a way, two kinds of treatment: one treatment for one class and another treatment for another class. When we can reach people through such business transactions as those I noted a little while ago, I think the proposal I made would be worthy of the attention of the government.
I hope the government will give immediate attention to the plight of the state pensioners, among whom I would include Canadian National railway ex-personnel and also-veterans. Every member of this house knows 
that these former employees cannot carry on and meet the actual cost of living with a pension that was fixed on the occasion of their departure several years ago.
I have a special recommendation of local or regional importance, namely, the abolition of the tolls on the Jacques Cartier and Victoria bridges, joining the south shore of the St. Lawrence river to the city of Montreal. The city of Montreal and the province of Quebec have already paid large sums to cover the yearly deficits, and I think it is now time to render justice to the citizens of this part of the country, especially those residing on the south shore, whose numbers have grown so rapidly in the last decade. I consider that the toll charged to them is discriminatory in a way, in view of the fact that in no other place in the province of Quebec is a passage fee collected for travelling on bridges. Some of the residents on the south shore are using the bridge several times a week, and some even use it many times every day; and I think that this is a kind of indirect tax which is charged them.
As I said before, Mr. Speaker, this is a summary in the language spoken by the majority of the members of this house. Before I finish my remarks in that language I want to say this. I would have given my serious attention to any proposal coming from any side of this house and tending to improve the present situation. I am not going to vote for the amendment, as it contains no such suggestions but rather merely expressions of blame against this government. As I said previously, although the situation in some quarters, in constituencies such as the one I have the honour to represent, is not flourishing, nevertheless it is not desperate. It is certainly different from that which existed in the thirties. I was an alderman at that time and a member of the executive of the city of Montreal.
They are not very particular in choosing their executive members there. In any event,
I was a member of the executive for two terms and alderman for five terms. I went through the period of depression, and I saw a great deal of misery. I saw people almost dying of hunger, I would say. I have seen landlords receiving direct relief. I have seen business people getting out of business owing to the depression. Some people are trying to replace the word "depression", are trying to frighten us with that word "inflation", and are comparing the situation we have today with that of the thirties. At that time, with a budget of $55 million, the share of the city of Montreal for direct relief alone was $1,500,000 a month; and I repeat that this

was just enough to save people from starving. But when we compare the situation today and we see the prosperity around us everybody will note the facts. Look at the provincial budget. I am thinking of the budget of my own province. At the time I am speaking of now, around 1935 and 1936, that budget was somewhere around $55 million. It is now over $200 million. Well, if that is a sign of depression-I know I am not an economist- but if this is not the sign of some prosperity, I do not understand the first word about business.


Angus MacInnis: It may be a sign of inflation.


Hector Dupuis: It may be a sign of inflation; it may be a sign of prosperity. If inflation exists today in some proportion I hope the time will change and that prosperity will come again, as I am quite sure that the present government-as they have always done-will take the necessary precautions to see that prosperity will be assured in the future. Mind you, I am not trying to get in the good graces of the government at the present time. I am simply expressing sincerely what I believe to be the right thing.
Taking into account the efforts madie by the present government to overcome this difficult situation, I do not hesitate to give all my confidence to the cabinet, and by doing so I am reflecting, I am quite sure, the opinion of those whom I have the honour to represent in this house.
(Translation):
Indeed, Mr. Speaker, I am not one of those who spend their time criticizing the actions of our government without even offering suggestions calculated to improve present conditions or any other situation. As was so well pointed out by the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) the opposition goes so far as to brand even our best as very wrong.
I know perhaps better, at least as well as any other member of this house, the hardships that some of our people have to put up with, and there is not a shadow of a doubt that those new taxes are going to press hard enough on the whole of our people. One must realize however, as I already said in English, that we are faced with special conditions arising out of international circumstances beyond our control.
Our own survival is at stake at this time, Mr. Speaker, and it is a question of paying an insurance premium for the survival of
The Budget-Mr. Dupuis our nation, of democracy, and of the freedom we all cherish.
It would have been preferable, I feel, if certain taxes had not been imposed. I must confess, however, that I have not many to suggest other than those I mentioned a moment ago and which I would like, if I may, to repeat in my own tongue.
In my opinion, it would be advisable to consider the possibility of imposing an income tax on certain real estate transactions or on the sale of business establishments because, as I pointed out earlier, I have known of businesses changing hands many times. The sellers were often able to make a profit of $20,000 to $30,000. In the United States there is a tax on such transactions. Perhaps it is too late to include such a measure in this budget. I feel, however, the government should consider the suggestion. It would mean an immediate source of revenue since the tax would be levied at the time these transactions are made. The government would undoubtedly draw substantial revenue which would enable a lowering of the tax on the income of the population in general or at least would allow it to remain at the rate it was before the decision was made to increase it. This is not a clever find I have made. I repeat that it is being done in the United States and I see no reason why it could not be done here also.
The same principle could apply to speculations on the stock market. I have not the time to refute certain arguments that have been advanced against such a step. The matter, however, deserves some consideration from our leaders. In any event, I make this suggestion with a view to alleviating as much as possible the burden which bears too heavily on the working classes and people with smaller means.
Do not think that I would, for one moment, speak or act like a demagogue. Far from it. But someone has to look after the underprivileged and alleviate their burden, if it is not possible to remedy the situation completely.
I am not saying the government failed in its duty in this respect, but one can never do too much and cannot take too great an interest in those people.
The rich, the wealthy and well-to-do can always find a way out of certain financial difficulties, but the underprivileged, abandoned to their lot, are unable to cope with

The Budget-Mr. Dupuis them. I therefore deem it my duty to look after them. Once again, I know that it is the government's intention to alleviate, as much as possible, the burden that crushes those people.
As for the excise taxes being levied-and here I appeal more particularly to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott)-I wander whether there is not still time to revise those which are collected on various goods. I do not blame the Minister of Finance, nor do I envy him the task of deciding where to get the revenue he needs; moreover, even if I tried my best, I could never find a popular tax, but I am just making a suggestion. I wonder whether it is still possible to change the tax levied on tobacco, and particularly on leaf tobacco, the kind smoked by poor people.
They cannot afford to treat themselves to a cigar, but these fine Canadians smoke Canadian leaf tobacco which they cut to suit their own taste. Yet, this excise tax may well double the price of leaf tobacco.
I share the views of my colleague from Rimouski (Mr. Rousseau)-although I am no abstainer-that alcoholic beverages should have been taxed instead. People who can afford to have a drink, to use a popular expression, are probably in a position to pay 15 or 20 per cent more or, in any event, enough to enable the Minister of Finance to abolish this excise tax on leaf and cigarette tobacco smoked mostly by people who cannot afford more expensive tobacco or the luxury of a cigar.
The excise tax on chocolate has also been abolished.
I remember that, some years ago, the distributors of soft drinks asked the government to remove the tax on soft drinks, claiming that the popular price was 5 cents, and it was embarrassing to charge a customer
6	cents for a bottle of soft drink, that it was absolutely advisable to return to a price of 5 cents a bottle. What happened? First soft drinks were sold at 6 cents a bottle, then at
7	cents. There you have it. The government did not levy any tax and those who profited thereby were the manufacturers and bottlers who made a profit of more than 40 per cent of the initial price at which they had promised to sell their product.
The same thing occurred in the case of the chocolate bar. We saw it shrink and I am in a position to say so because my son manages a store where these items are sold. The manufacturers wrote to us recently, to tell

us: "No, we will not reduce the price of chocolate bars but we will add a small quantity of chocolate".
I am of the opinion that alcoholic beverages and chocolate bars are not necessities of life and that our good ladies and even gentlemen who enjoy them would gladly sacrifice a bit of chocolate in order to ensure the repeal of certain taxes which, in my humble opinion, are levied too heavily on things which are really necessary to life. I am not, in saying this, censuring the Minister of Finance or, for that matter the present budget, but I do feel that I am duty bound to bring the matter to his attention. Most people in my constituency are really relatively poor-at least they are not particularly well to do. I feel that in making this request I am truly fulfilling my duty towards them.
I have heard the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) ask our citizens to make sacrifices. Our people are undoubtedly ready to make sacrifices, but there is a limit to everything. We have but one wish: that the international situation, which is the cause of our present financial difficulties, may improve so as to relieve the sufferings of the underprivileged whom, I repeat, it is my duty to defend.
I would have spoken longer but for the rules of the house. However, in concluding my remarks I would like, if I may, to quote from an item published in the March 1951 issue of the Reader's Digest under the signature of Bernard Baruch. I was greatly impressed by this article, which is not at variance with the ideas expressed by the Minister of Finance. I quote:
Today we are being asked to place our own valuation on freedom, in the things we are ready to give up, the taxes we will pay, the selfdiscipline we embrace-in how quickly we will do all this. Let us not haggle, clinging to petty profits and petty comforts. Should we price freedom too low, it will be taken from us.
Unfortunately, when I urged total mobilization of America's military, economic and spiritual resources, there were too many who felt we should "wait and see". They hoped that something would happen to change the attitude of our enemies- those without and those within. Those without are Russia and her satellites. Within are the pressure groups, selfishness, cowardice, inflation, and above all, incompetence in the management of our affairs.
The world is shaping up to a struggle between communism and individualism, between that system which feels the state should be the master and that system, ours, which feels the state should be the servant of the individual.
I warn my fellow Americans that the first battle of the great Armageddon is taking place within our country-now. If our democracy, our government and the institutions founded under its constitution cannot control the conflicting and selfish interests for the over-all welfare, Armageddon will be lost here in our own country. How can our

conscience rest easily when we so unflinchingly send our young men to battle and hesitate to send profits? The situation demands self-denial and sacrifice. Unless we practice these things we shall lose first the spiritual battle of Armageddon and the last will surely be lest-the physical one.
Mr. Speaker, I conclude by expressing the hope that the government will continue to direct their particular attention to the situation which I will not describe as tragic but as very difficult and which now imposes severe hardships upon my constituents. I know that heretofore the government has considered the welfare of this class of people and I hope that our leaders will not miss the opportunity to restore, as soon as possible, the necessary equilibrium in order that each
The Budget-Mr. Dupuis and every one, no matter what social class he may belong to, may in spite of the many difficulties that beset us feel an ever greater happiness in this beautiful country of ours, Canada.
(Text):
On motion of Mr. Brooks the debate was adjourned.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Alphonse Fournier: Mr. Speaker, on Monday we will continue this debate.


[Stage Direction]
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
22S5
[Stage Direction]
Monday, April 23, 1951